- Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at a 2.1 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, bringing its growth rate for the year to 2.3 percent. That is a fall from the 2.5 percent growth rate in 2018 and 2.8 percent in 2017. The 2.5 percent average for the first three years of the Trump administration is almost identical to the 2.4 percent average for the second term of the Obama administration. In December of 2017 prior to the huge tax cuts to the wealthy class, Trump announced: :” This is going to be one of the great gifts to the middle-income people that they’ve ever gotten for Christmas…Years from now they can make it even more generous if we can get the economy like it should be. The economy now is at 3%. Nobody thought it would be anywhere close. I think it could go to 4, 5, and maybe even 6%, ultimately. “…….and like the wall that Mexico would pay for, this is another Promise Made, Promise Broken,
- The U.S. government’s public debt is now more than $22 trillion — the highest it has ever been.
It is important for you to know these numbers when speaking to anyone still convinced that since the DOW is up and unemployment is down, things are rosy and we would be unwise to change direction.
Please share widely!
I appreciate and agree with this post (and up-voted it).
At the same time, I feel compelled to observe that anyone voting for Donald Trump or the GOP in this election simply isn’t paying attention to truth or facts. They simply can’t be — if they were, then they would know that EVERYTHING this administration and its supporters say is a lie.
I think that presenting facts and truth like these to somebody “considering” voting for Donald Trump and the GOP is a waste of time. These are despots who are doing all they can to suppress evidence in the impeachment trial because they know it will hurt their case — evidence that is already in the public domain, and will be published in a few months.
This audience not only won’t listen to you, the attempt to have the conversation will only increase their resolve to give you the virtual — or sometimes literal — finger.
I took the original post to have a slightly different meaning. I took it as a reminder that Democrats need to also believe that this election is about the economy.
I’m sorry if this offends people here, but I really don’t get a sense of urgency about the economy from people on this forum. I think it is because people who live inside 128 are somewhat insulated from the problem due to the “hot” Boston job market. I appreciate that from that vantage point, the problems look more like housing, transit, and other things that come with trying to jam 6 million people into a tiny corner of the state.
There are 150,000 residents in Springfield. The median household income of those residents is $34,731. Do people really appreciate how low that is? If all 150,000 of those people were in a position to be open to Trump’s race-based grievance pitch, I think a substantial number would have listened to him. Why? Because those 150,000 people are not earning so little because they are irresponsible. They are earning so little because the system is broken.
Trump recognized that, and told them what they knew – that they mattered, and that it was someone else’s fault. In this case, he blamed immigrants – which was false.
Trump’s election was a reaction to not being listened to. Don’t get me wrong – Trump exploited deep-seated hatred in people, but he was only able to do this because Democrats had long-ago written off a chunk of their voters, and instead shifted party focus and voice to socially liberal high-earning professionals.
Things generally did not improve very much for the 150,000 people in Springfield under President Obama. I know that Obama faced many obstacles and don’t personally blame him, but he really wasn’t a champion of the underdog, of the
If you let voters believe in the fantasy that the economy is doing great because the stock market is up, and that this election is really about global warming more than anything, then I fear you will be saying “President Trump” for the next four years – or longer!
I’m of two, maybe three, minds on this. On the one hand we’re told by all the usual measures the economy is great. On the second hand there is certainly evidence not everyone is benefitting (myself included). Thirdly, I don’t care if this is the most fantastic and inclusive economy ever; that doesn’t change the fact that 45 is a dangerous, unqualified, misogynistic bigot and traitor!
The fact remains that Springfield voters chose Hillary Clinton 40,341 to 11,231 in 2016. That’s SEVENTY EIGHT to twenty two percent.
It seems to me that your own data demonstrates that those 150,000 poverty-stricken households in Springfield categorically rejected the GOP lies about the economy.
@Trump’s election was a reaction to not being listened to.:
Donald Trump’s election was about the depth of racism, sexism, and STUNNING ignorance in this country. Mr. Trump’s support did NOT come from poor households. It certainly didn’t come from the poor households of Springfield. You insult the residents of Springfield by suggesting otherwise.
I don’t know of any Democrats who claim that the economy is doing well (that’s another GOP lie) or that the election is about global warming (some of us feel it should be — it appears to me that those people are energized because at the moment it is not).
Every election is about the economy. That was true when James Carville coined the famous phrase almost thirty years ago (in 1992). It had been true for decades when he said it. Ronald Reagan’s most compelling campaign arguments were economic — the lies that taxes were too high, that government debt was too high (classic GOP double-speak), the lie that “those people” were taking away jobs from “deserving” workers (another thinly-veiled racist dog-whistle).
The economy should be the most burning question in the 2020 election, because the economy is worse than its ever been for nearly all Americans.
The election may will turn out to be about whether or not we love America — because Donald Trump and the Trumpists are the only puppet government of a hostile nation that America has ever had.
There is one huge stinking elephant carcass in the room during the 2020 campaign — NO president, cabinet, and political party has EVER been so flagrantly, explicitly, and viciously loyal to a hostile Russian dictator. No president, cabinet, or party has EVER so flagrantly, explicitly, and viciously betrayed virtually every value and virtue that America professes belief in.
Any American who ignores that elephant and pulls the GOP lever anyway deserves to live in the third-world s**thole nation that will result from a Trumpist win.
Yes.
Are we willing to elect a Democrat and allow them to point blame where it is? And no, it’s not a problem that will be cured with free college or forgiving college debt. It also has nothing to do with “a global economy” or “automation:. Those are all red herrings.
No, it’s not broken, it’s rigged. Sure, any economy is “rigged” with regulations and policy, only our is rigged to bail out the rich, coddle the wealthy, and protect the fortunes of families who are in full control of this nation.
Even if we stipulate that this comment is true, it isn’t relevant to your own thread-starter.
The audience we’re talking about is not going to be any more receptive to your assertions that the economy is rigged than to citations of fact.
People who support Donald Trump and the Trumpists today do so because — not in spite of — the bigotry, misanthropy, ignorance, corruption, and deceit of this administration. That audience cheers for the abuse of immigrants — they’ll jeer you and anybody else who tries to divert their energy anywhere else.
The economy will start to heal ONLY when we forcibly reclaim a small portion of the trillions of dollars of wealth that the ultrawealthy have plundered from the rest of us. Democratic voters know that. Trumpist voters do not.
The voters of Springfield overwhelmingly want help with sending their kids to college. The 20-something and 30-something voters of Springfield — and their baby-boomer parents who ALWAYS vote — overwhelmingly want help with their crushing student debt burdens. They overwhelmingly want a government committed to ensuring that they and their families are able to vote, are protected from racist and sexist discrimination in the workplace, and a long list of other things that Democrats have ALWAYS fought for.
The economy is indeed rigged. The economy does indeed work well ONLY for the already-wealthy and powerful. It needs to be said that it ALSO works well ONLY for whites, and — across the board — it works better for men and than for women.
I think that Springfield voters are going to support the Democratic candidate in November — whoever he or she is — and reject the lies of Donald Trump and Trumpist GOP.
I think they do that BECAUSE they know that Democrats are passionate about healing their suffering — and that explicitly includes helping with college expenses, lowering student debt burdens, improving their access to health care, protecting them from brutal police, and ensuring that they get equal pay for equal work.
I’m going to avoid the naked trolling about “public sector employees” and refer you to this link, which I think explains what I’m trying to say better than me:
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/10/future-liberals-want-matt-karp-populism-class-voting-democrats
The premise is that the Democratic Party has aligned itself with the landed professional class, and the landed professional class isn’t doing that bad, especially since they have been able to insulate themselves from increasing numbers of poor people.
Basically, I think a lot of people in today’s Democratic Party would have found themselves campaigning for Reagan in either 1980 or 1984, for his “no new taxes” and “we can’t help people who don’t want to help themselves” messages.
I will note that a large number of Springfield teachers – I don’t have direct stats though – do not live in Springfield. Why? They are paid enough to be able to afford to live elsewhere. I’m not knocking teacher pay, but I am highlighting that neither the Democratic or Republican parties wants to be particularly inconvenienced to help people who need help.
Read the first paragraph of that article and try to tell me that it is wildly different from the thought being thrown around Blue Mass Group:
Either you did not know or you do not remember the Democratic Party of 1980 and 1984, or you do not know the Democratic Party today. I need more than a dystopian novelette to even understand, never mind embrace, this preposterous claim.
Who do you think the Democratic Party should be helping, and are not, in this example?
Are you saying that the Democrat Party isn’t doing enough for the people who DO live in Springfield? You’ll get no argument from this Democrat on that point. I invite you to offer commentary that anybody here on BMG opposes that posture.
Are you saying that there is no difference between the Democratic Party and GOP in their respective policy proposals for distressed urban areas like Springfield?
If your assertion is that MASSACHUSETTS “Democrats” vote more like Reagan-era Republicans, then I completely agree. I think that’s a different argument from what you seem to be saying here.
In any case, I think your commentary is still unresponsive to what I see as the major claim of the thread-starter — which is that if we Democrats will emphasize the highlighted items of the thread-starter, we will win over voters who currently support Donald Trump and the GOP.
I know of NO Democrats who today claim “the DOW is up and unemployment is down, things are rosy and we would be unwise to change direction.” That’s a Republican talking-point, and a complete lie.
I think pretty much every Trumpist voter knows it’s a lie and doesn’t care — because ANY voter who cares about truth or lies long ago stopped supporting Donald Trump and the Trumpist GOP.
If you’re getting paid to do government work you vote where the money is. Who will keep paying for 100% of my health insurance premiums, who will keep paying my pension even though it drives the state into the ground. Who will steer more money towards higher ed even though it passed the point of diminishing returns billions of dollars ago. (As evidenced by those burdensome student loans. If expanded higher ed was such an economic driver why are the loanees having such a hard time paying them off?)
Anyone connected to the building trades cannot work fast enough. I am turning work away. Springfield is held together by public assistance and public sector jobs. The voters there logically want to keep that money coming. Why should Trump voters be insulted and demeaned for doing the same thing?
I’m trying to find some sort of logical thread in this comment, and coming up short. Since you chose to add this to a thread about the economy, it is perhaps safe to assume that you’re attempting to make a comment about economic issues.
Your comment is clear enough that you are connected to the building trades and that your personal economic situation is good right now. I’m happy for you, congratulations.
In your second paragraph, your third sentence (“Springfield is held together…”) is a non sequitur from the sentence that precedes it. The rest of your second paragraph is similarly disconnected.
Your first paragraph is a sequence of apparently rhetorical questions that similarly have no connection with each other. For example, “[steering money] towards higher ed” has absolutely nothing to do with health insurance premiums, pensions, or pension funding.
I parenthetically note that we “liberals” have been citing public pension funding as a reason for raising taxes for as long as I can remember. It is the GOP and “conservative” voices who oppose both the increased taxes and increased pension funding for that same period. I’m therefore confused about your argument. Are you claiming that we should be increasing pension funding? Then why have you and your conservative peers spent so much energy fighting just that? Are you claiming instead that public pensions should NOT be funded? Isn’t that “driving the state into the ground” — the very thing you claim you don’t want?
I therefore view this comment as a sequence of randomly-chosen disconnected rants combined with a bit of “I’ve got mine so further discussion is a waste of time.” Perhaps you might try again with different wording if you’re actually trying to say something meaningful.
I concluded that it was a combination of trolling and gish-galloping so figured it was not worth it to respond.
I believe seascraper is saying that Springfield has more gainfully employed people sucking on the public … than most cities/areas and of course they would want to continue getting government funding channeled to them. Electing Democrats is seen as the way to accomplish that. Who gets pensions anymore? Public employees. Not sure what they get at the new government run casino (what an economic stimulus) but I bet the benefits are above average. Fewer public employees and we the taxpayers have less of an obligation to provide funding for their above average benefits. It’s great if you’re a recipient of one of these public jobs, say in the probation department, but not everyone has those connections.
But you don’t need a college degree to deal blackjack or be a stick man. If a college degree was as valuable in this economy as it used to be people wouldn’t have such a hard time paying back their student loans. There wouldn’t be so many graduates with literature degrees strolling the aisles of the slot machines handing out drinks for tips. There would be a stronger inherent value (economically) to a college degree. Recently a Harvard business professor said half of our colleges will go bankrupt in about 10 years.
Do you know how to drywall, drive long haul, lay shingles? You’re busy. I know someone who has a four year UMass degree and he’s paying bills as an electrician.
“government-run casino”? Really? Have you been partaking of the new “government-run” weed retailers? Perhaps drinking at a “government-run” bar?
The government, for better or worse, licensed a private company to operate a casino in Springfield. If you don’t like that, you can blame the elected representatives that pushed that through the legislature. Or perhaps you think we’d be better off if there were no limits or licenses required to operate casinos, restaurants, bars, retail outlets, and the like. Perhaps you think we’ll all be better off if we rely on the good will of the owners of such businesses to actually provide what they say they offer.
Where do you get the idea that the employees of the MGM casino are public employees?
Oh, and so long so as we’re talking about casinos, a variety of sources report that the construction of the Springfield casino created about 2,000 construction jobs. That includes at least a few sheetrock hangers and electricians. The “creation” of construction jobs like this is a mainstay of public spending. Given the current economy of Springfield, public spending is if anything a larger, rather than smaller, source of jobs in the building trades. Tradespeople who whine about public spending are, once again, biting the hand that feeds them.
Your comment about the number of “graduates with literature degrees strolling the aisles of the slot machines” is wildly disconnected from the reality of why good-paying jobs are so rare, especially for young people entering the work force. You need look no farther than the share of wealth locked up in the top 0.001% — and the economic policy driven by the GOP for decades — for answers.
Do you think that more students pursuing literature degrees helps or hurts the college community? In contrast, what do you think was the impact of slashing government funding for research? Like the comment from seascraper, this comment seems to be stringing together randomly-chosen shibboleths and outright fallacies (“government-run” casino!).
This comment suggests that Christopher had it about right up-thread.
My mistake, not government run just encouraged. A real solution for a economically challenged area.
No problem, all of us have occasional brain-farts.
Is your argument that government encouragement is bad? And are you claiming that the GOP doesn’t do likewise?
Once again, I encourage you to examine the data. For example, consider the pace at which the economy rebounds from a recession, and look at how much or how little government spending (in the forms of unemployment compensation, tax incentives, federal, state, and local government hiring, and so on) happened during the recovery. You’ll find that when the government spends more during a recovery, the recovery is more rapid and more intense.
The single most important reason why the recovery from the Great Recession of 2008 was so tepid is that overall (federal, state, and local) government HIRING was essentially turned off.
GOP conservatives of 2008 (and other years with a Democratic administration) are well aware of this (it’s macro-economics 101) — that’s WHY they strive to suppress it. It is, after all, much more advantageous to GOP candidates for the economy to be bad while Democrats are in office or in the majority.