Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Why Are Republican Presidents So Bad for the Economy?
"...For the most part, however, Republican economic policy since 1980 has revolved around a single policy: large tax cuts, tilted heavily toward the affluent..."
The biggest takeaway I have from the data is how is Obama not at the top of all of these charts given he had the most favorable set up (starting off low lows)...
Whatever happened to the biggest stock market crash we’ve ever seen if Biden was elected, as predicted by Trump? Ironically, Trump could be credited for the big stock market rise during the final months of his administration — mainly because Biden won!
Presidents generally don't deserve most of the credit for good stock market performance nor do they deserve most of the blame when the market crashes. There are many variables beyond a president's control.
The article examines economic performance under Democratic and Republican presidents. My comment was about stock market performance. The stock market is not the economy. If there is a correlation between stock market performance and a sitting president's party, I am not aware of it. I believe the conditions at the time of inauguration are important factors. For example, the price of stocks, interest rates, investor sentiment, and the phase of the economic cycle can greatly influence stock's returns during a president's tenure.
I wonder if it's worth pointing out that at least the first couple of years of a four-year administration probably have more to do with the last couple of years of the previous administration? I'd be happier with a comparison from year two of an administration to year one of the following administration. Maybe that would come out the same; don't really know.
Demublicans like to throw money at social programs. Repugnants like to throw money at rich people. You can't solve real, significant problems--- not at the root--- by throwing money at those problems. If Little Johnny won't learn because he's still feral, what's a teacher to do? Parents must do their job, too. And wealthy people don't need the money. "There's Yer Trouble." As for the stock market, tax cuts and deficit spending plus The Fed juicing the economy (via the markets) only creates a smaller dollar, inflating asset prices. Not to mention the cost of everything.
>> You can't solve real, significant problems--- not at the root--- by throwing money at those problems.
Oh, come on! This is simply not true. Why do you assert bunk like that? There are lots of data and hard outcome studies, from Head Start to forms of UBI and WIC / food-related cash to affirmative action showing lasting outcome differences. But you know this. From reading tutors to police training to arts subsidies. The list is endless.
If Little Johnny won't learn because he's still feral, what's a teacher to do? Parents must do their job, too. I was a substitute. I've experienced anti-social and feral kids who know no limits, will say and do anything. Zero self-discipline. Humiliating another student in Spanish in front of my face because he assumed I knew only English. Etcetera. ..........Throwing $$$ at programs is helpful relieving symptoms. A reorientation toward a just society is needed. Universal health care. Education that actually upholds learning standards, so that kids leave school actually educated. So a diploma actually means something again. I know a teacher in rural Ohio who tells me that her Principal and higher-ups require her to shuffle even kids who are failing, up to the next grade level. Teachers are not allowed to flunk the poor little snowflakes. No accountability.
We'll all never be equal. But equality of opportunity is essential. And standards, rather than coddling. A society that tolerates and expects there to be an underclass should be collectively ashamed. But parents who just don't have time to be parents... I guess they forgot the contraception. Oops.
>> Parents must do their job, too. ... A reorientation toward a just society is needed. Universal health care.
Ah. Got it. Okay then.
And flunking kids. Great idea.
And thinking of them as snowflakes. I trust you are not subbing anymore.
David, if you're not a teacher (and have never been one?), you can't begin to argue the issue with any insight. Other than snark, I'm not seeing any real, substantive response to what Crash is saying. Money can accomplish SOME things, but it can't RESOLVE societal issues. The SOLUTION to most of our problems is through education; assuming, of course, that opportunity is provided for all who desire it. But our society tends not to value education, and some segments seem to actively work against it. Our 'failing' schools seem to do just fine with asian, jewish, and professionally-parented children (children of doctors, lawyers, educators, etc) of WHATEVER race. Since I'm not inclined to think this group is any smarter, this implies that there is something THESE groups possess that the others do not. Since the first two tended to arrive here poor, it's hard for me to assign their success to money. Perhaps our focus should be on the things that were shown to have worked for them? No one threw money at THESE folks, so they came in with something 'WE' lack generally; it would seem?
To be successful, coming from little, you require a work ethic, opportunity, and a respect, and indeed, reverence for education...or...you simply have to be innately smarter than others. Learned people should be respected, not denigrated by 'jokes' about "absent-minded professors"; for example. 'Americans', generally, don't respect educated people, listen to them, or follow their example; the nonsense being seen during this pandemic being a prime example. Throwing money around isn't going to change that - but it IS easy to do; especially if it is someone else's money! 8^b
David, if you're not a teacher (and have never been one?), you can't begin to argue the issue with any insight.
Gotta admit, I stopped reading your post there.
Following that logic (?), do you also hold that if you've never played professional sports, you can't possibly be an insightful professional sports commentator, writer or analyst? Or is that somehow different? And if so, how?
Lemme know so that I can wash my brain of anything I ever learned from Vince Scully, Bob Costas, Tom Verducci, Paul Zimmerman...
Me, I went to school for ~20 years, have two relatives (both with PhDs) who taught for years, am married almost 45 years to a retired school teacher, live in a neighborhood overstocked with retired school teachers, and have audited the books of about 20-25 schools. But, OK, I've never been a teacher. Do I, and others with similar bios, also NOT have any insight on the issue?
Crash asserted nonsense and I called him on it with substantiation. Then he started handwaving about a just society but calling for more flunking of kids.
Whatever.
Racqueteer, this may not be the best month to trot out the tired bootstraps argument yet again. It does remain perennially popular among some of us nonminority types, and even among some minorities too. Why can't everyone be like the Jews and the Asians and others similarly situated? What racism? What structural inequality?
As for my career, I have been a teen worker, HS teacher, university TA, and most recently sometime HS coach and sub. Also parent and grandparent. Also married to an elem-schoolteacher for a decade. I do know the gut feeling of being in a difficult classroom. It all can be very discouraging, not to say difficult to have insights about.
But I know that this is pernicious crap at the talk-radio level: 'You can't solve real, significant problems --- not at the root --- by throwing money at those problems.'
David, if you're not a teacher (and have never been one?), you can't begin to argue the issue with any insight.
Gotta admit, I stopped reading your post there.
Following that logic (?), do you also hold that if you've never played professional sports, you can't possibly be an insightful professional sports commentator, writer or analyst? Or is that somehow different? And if so, how?
Lemme know so that I can wash my brain of anything I ever learned from Vince Scully, Bob Costas, Tom Verducci, Paul Zimmerman...
Me, I went to school for ~20 years, have two relatives (both with PhDs) who taught for years, am married almost 45 years to a retired school teacher, live in a neighborhood overstocked with retired school teachers, and have audited the books of about 20-25 schools. But, OK, I've never been a teacher. Do I, and others with similar bios, also NOT have any insight on the issue?
Fair enough, Stillers; I made too sweeping a statement going in. I would suggest that the cases you cite involve people who either have, or have access to, direct knowledge of the field involved. I submit that opinions tend to be less valid if not supported by actual evidence and experience. If you could be bothered to go beyond that flawed introduction, I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Crash asserted nonsense and I called him on it with substantiation. Then he started handwaving about a just society but calling for more flunking of kids.
Whatever.
Racqueteer, this may not be the best month to trot out the tired bootstraps argument yet again. It does remain perennially popular among some of us nonminority types, and even among some minorities too. Why can't everyone be like the Jews and the Asians and others similarly situated? What racism? What structural inequality?
As for my career, I have been a teen worker, HS teacher, university TA, and most recently sometime HS coach and sub. Also parent and grandparent. Also married to an elem-schoolteacher for a decade. I do know the gut feeling of being in a difficult classroom. It all can be very discouraging, not to say difficult to have insights about.
But I know that this is pernicious crap at the talk-radio level: 'You can't solve real, significant problems --- not at the root --- by throwing money at those problems.'
The problem, to me, with BOTH sides is the unwillingness to bend from some absolutist stance. To my way of thinking, everyone is entitled to a fair chance. That may entail more help to some individuals than others. Ultimately, however, good intentions aside, I can't MAKE someone do what is necessary to be successful. And, like the reality or not, the society in which one lives has a huge impact on the outcome. Money is almost certainly an issue, but attitude on ALL sides is as well. "Throwing money" at a problem isn't the same thing as properly funding productive strategies. If we as a society were actually serious about the issue, we'd have better pay in hard to staff districts than in affluent ones. We have just the opposite. Further, it would be more 'help' to struggling students to have classrooms which are orderly (disciplined) than not.
Having spent almost 30 years teaching mostly chemistry and physics in a heavily minority district, I know that I was drawing my classes from about half the population. Even THAT population was underperforming its potential; a situation which became WORSE over my career, Discipline issues became a greater and greater issue as time went by; since the schools didn't want to have 'bad statistics'. This despite the fact that, in a class of 1,000 students, there were probably only a dozen kids accounting for 75% of the serious instances. Instead of controlling THOSE kids, 'we' lightened up on enforcement and the problem spread.
I don't want ANY kids to fail, but the reality is that, if you set standards, SOME will not meet them. The 'solution' isn't to lower the standards so that EVERYONE 'succeeds'. If you don't end up actually KNOWING anything, how is that 'succeeding'? Anyway, by all means, make it possible TO succeed, but don't expect that you can make everyone DO it.
It seems that some may be concentrating on how to solve the BIG, LT education system issues, while others may be concentrating on the immediate, urgent need to address the issues of reopening schools due to COVID. I dunno, bit I do know my head hurts trying to determine that.
If so, I suggest that these are TWO vastly different issues and debates that, though not mutually exclusive, should be debated separately.
The first was deeply dived into in the iconic, must see, 2010 documentary, Waiting for "Superman". Despite its critics, hard to express/expose the deep rooted issues and possible solutions any better than that. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1566648/
I do NOT want to get into this debate any further than to suggest reading that link and understanding that the bulk of the "money being thrown at the problem" in the next stimulus bill is primarily to combat the unique issues related to COVID, and IMO, essential to solving those issues. Solving the deep rooted education system issues is a whole 'nother story, and one that the average person who is/was NOT a teacher (or have a bio akin to mine), may not be fully aware of had they not watched the referenced documentary.
Thanks for the links; I'll take a look at the movie (documentary?).
There are certainly two separate issues, and, fortunately, this thread quickly diverged from the initial partisan headline to more substantive issues. I'm not sure we've talked much about COVID-focussed money, though. Once the lawmakers/politicians get involved, my teeth start to clench; so may be that's just as well. What HAS become clear is that the current situation is not being well-served by the previous arrangement wherein the goal was to achieve some (low) minimum educational goal, for minimal cost, while cramming as many students into as little space as possible. NOW, with student density mandated to be basically cut in half, with goals, time, and money left unchanged, we have an impossibly situation; ESPECIALLY for teachers who THEMSELVES have kids to care for at home! People can't work because their kids are home at least half the time; provided they HAVE jobs. By all means, let's force kids into crowded school conditions where they (and their teachers) are at risk. Think there will be low-wage subs available for the sick teachers? If it's not ok to be in crowds anywhere else, why would it be ok in school?
How do we 'fix' our schools? I think you have to recognize that you have to set reasonable goals, provide students with the tools they need and an equal opportunity to learn, provide well-trained teachers (and demand they not be disrespected), disallow behaviors which negatively impact the learning of others, and recognize that setting reasonable standards of accomplishment and behavior will result in SOME kids 'failing'. You can't have it both ways...
Private schools? If you want something that isn't on the menu, expect to pay the bill yourself. This assumes that all the prior stuff I wrote is the case. If kids are allowed to run riot and disrupt the learning of others, then we might have to do something differently.
>> The problem, to me, with BOTH sides is the unwillingness to bend from some absolutist stance.
This untrue belief is so handy that it has become among the very most pernicious around these days. But that is a different subject, and I would rather reread the thoughts of a 30y science teacher.
Comments
My comment was about stock market performance.
The stock market is not the economy.
If there is a correlation between stock market performance and a sitting president's party,
I am not aware of it. I believe the conditions at the time of inauguration are important factors.
For example, the price of stocks, interest rates, investor sentiment, and the phase of the economic cycle can greatly influence stock's returns during a president's tenure.
(as of last summer)
Oh, come on! This is simply not true. Why do you assert bunk like that? There are lots of data and hard outcome studies, from Head Start to forms of UBI and WIC / food-related cash to affirmative action showing lasting outcome differences. But you know this. From reading tutors to police training to arts subsidies. The list is endless.
https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers/
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/08/07/541609649/how-to-fix-poverty-why-not-just-give-people-money
must see what the followups show
gonna stop paying attention to your statements
..........Throwing $$$ at programs is helpful relieving symptoms. A reorientation toward a just society is needed. Universal health care. Education that actually upholds learning standards, so that kids leave school actually educated. So a diploma actually means something again. I know a teacher in rural Ohio who tells me that her Principal and higher-ups require her to shuffle even kids who are failing, up to the next grade level. Teachers are not allowed to flunk the poor little snowflakes. No accountability.
We'll all never be equal. But equality of opportunity is essential. And standards, rather than coddling. A society that tolerates and expects there to be an underclass should be collectively ashamed. But parents who just don't have time to be parents... I guess they forgot the contraception. Oops.
Ah. Got it. Okay then.
And flunking kids. Great idea.
And thinking of them as snowflakes. I trust you are not subbing anymore.
To be successful, coming from little, you require a work ethic, opportunity, and a respect, and indeed, reverence for education...or...you simply have to be innately smarter than others. Learned people should be respected, not denigrated by 'jokes' about "absent-minded professors"; for example. 'Americans', generally, don't respect educated people, listen to them, or follow their example; the nonsense being seen during this pandemic being a prime example. Throwing money around isn't going to change that - but it IS easy to do; especially if it is someone else's money! 8^b
Gotta admit, I stopped reading your post there.
Following that logic (?), do you also hold that if you've never played professional sports, you can't possibly be an insightful professional sports commentator, writer or analyst? Or is that somehow different? And if so, how?
Lemme know so that I can wash my brain of anything I ever learned from Vince Scully, Bob Costas, Tom Verducci, Paul Zimmerman...
Me, I went to school for ~20 years, have two relatives (both with PhDs) who taught for years, am married almost 45 years to a retired school teacher, live in a neighborhood overstocked with retired school teachers, and have audited the books of about 20-25 schools. But, OK, I've never been a teacher. Do I, and others with similar bios, also NOT have any insight on the issue?
Whatever.
Racqueteer, this may not be the best month to trot out the tired bootstraps argument yet again. It does remain perennially popular among some of us nonminority types, and even among some minorities too. Why can't everyone be like the Jews and the Asians and others similarly situated? What racism? What structural inequality?
As for my career, I have been a teen worker, HS teacher, university TA, and most recently sometime HS coach and sub. Also parent and grandparent. Also married to an elem-schoolteacher for a decade. I do know the gut feeling of being in a difficult classroom. It all can be very discouraging, not to say difficult to have insights about.
But I know that this is pernicious crap at the talk-radio level: 'You can't solve real, significant problems --- not at the root --- by throwing money at those problems.'
Having spent almost 30 years teaching mostly chemistry and physics in a heavily minority district, I know that I was drawing my classes from about half the population. Even THAT population was underperforming its potential; a situation which became WORSE over my career, Discipline issues became a greater and greater issue as time went by; since the schools didn't want to have 'bad statistics'. This despite the fact that, in a class of 1,000 students, there were probably only a dozen kids accounting for 75% of the serious instances. Instead of controlling THOSE kids, 'we' lightened up on enforcement and the problem spread.
I don't want ANY kids to fail, but the reality is that, if you set standards, SOME will not meet them. The 'solution' isn't to lower the standards so that EVERYONE 'succeeds'. If you don't end up actually KNOWING anything, how is that 'succeeding'? Anyway, by all means, make it possible TO succeed, but don't expect that you can make everyone DO it.
It seems that some may be concentrating on how to solve the BIG, LT education system issues, while others may be concentrating on the immediate, urgent need to address the issues of reopening schools due to COVID. I dunno, bit I do know my head hurts trying to determine that.
If so, I suggest that these are TWO vastly different issues and debates that, though not mutually exclusive, should be debated separately.
The first was deeply dived into in the iconic, must see, 2010 documentary, Waiting for "Superman". Despite its critics, hard to express/expose the deep rooted issues and possible solutions any better than that.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1566648/
The second is chronicled pretty nicely here:
https://www.future-ed.org/what-congressional-covid-funding-means-for-k-12-schools/
I do NOT want to get into this debate any further than to suggest reading that link and understanding that the bulk of the "money being thrown at the problem" in the next stimulus bill is primarily to combat the unique issues related to COVID, and IMO, essential to solving those issues. Solving the deep rooted education system issues is a whole 'nother story, and one that the average person who is/was NOT a teacher (or have a bio akin to mine), may not be fully aware of had they not watched the referenced documentary.
There are certainly two separate issues, and, fortunately, this thread quickly diverged from the initial partisan headline to more substantive issues. I'm not sure we've talked much about COVID-focussed money, though. Once the lawmakers/politicians get involved, my teeth start to clench; so may be that's just as well. What HAS become clear is that the current situation is not being well-served by the previous arrangement wherein the goal was to achieve some (low) minimum educational goal, for minimal cost, while cramming as many students into as little space as possible. NOW, with student density mandated to be basically cut in half, with goals, time, and money left unchanged, we have an impossibly situation; ESPECIALLY for teachers who THEMSELVES have kids to care for at home! People can't work because their kids are home at least half the time; provided they HAVE jobs. By all means, let's force kids into crowded school conditions where they (and their teachers) are at risk. Think there will be low-wage subs available for the sick teachers? If it's not ok to be in crowds anywhere else, why would it be ok in school?
How do we 'fix' our schools? I think you have to recognize that you have to set reasonable goals, provide students with the tools they need and an equal opportunity to learn, provide well-trained teachers (and demand they not be disrespected), disallow behaviors which negatively impact the learning of others, and recognize that setting reasonable standards of accomplishment and behavior will result in SOME kids 'failing'. You can't have it both ways...
Private schools? If you want something that isn't on the menu, expect to pay the bill yourself. This assumes that all the prior stuff I wrote is the case. If kids are allowed to run riot and disrupt the learning of others, then we might have to do something differently.
This untrue belief is so handy that it has become among the very most pernicious around these days. But that is a different subject, and I would rather reread the thoughts of a 30y science teacher.