Are you economically better off than you were 4 years ago?

John_C_87

@just_sayin

Me not being better off aside, cry, cry. whine, whine, always me, Boo Hoo. As fact economically what is called inflation is often the distribution of Federal and State cost for motivations taking place in politics which have been passed on to consumers. In American's case "We the People" through the business legislative sector to several media groups, fuel and power, retail, and social services. As true to form we do not see, nor are we shown how unlike it is that democratic or republican, by fact, must do only with political well-being adding additional cost to the American voting process. It’s not just the Electoral college if associated to the Colladge which appears to often be a focus of blame for poor conditions to voter’s influence confidence in what they are changing.

 Just_Saying is it possible that these unseen jobs have been created in the judicial process itself? To be direct the conduct of either and Executive officer who has been placed into “Oval Office” as of late can both be seen as legal liabilities as shown by insurance and natural disasters all liabilities come back to the people as national debt of one form or another.

Measuring the cost of civil litigation: Findings from a survey of trial lawyers (ncsc.org)

just_sayin

@John_C_87
I'm sure the fault is mine, I just don't understand what you are trying to say.

John_C_87

just_sayin said:

@John_C_87
I sincerely wish I understood what you are saying.  I'm sure the fault is mine, I just don't understand.

               No, the blame is more in the nature of factual GOD itself as a self-evident truth is a task of reason that must be related to over durations of human efforts. Truths twist both the words and thoughts of mankind and communications of the same.

(1) I have started my argument "We the people" are economically in the same place.

(2) In the use of a Congressional Budget committee reports, there is no distinction in both if not all past Executive Officers have not added to economic growth by simply increasing civil, and criminal cases in the judicial process.

(3) To understand a principle of a stabilized economy one vote for a political office such as Congress, Senate, and Oval office is needed. "We the people" do not need to vote for a Democratic nominee and Republican nominee for each office multiple votes tward the same political office have become undermining to the best interests of the people. They are both simply Republican and any such separation is totally necessary to ensure an American perfect connection to established justice.

John_C_87

 just_sayin said:

@John_C_87
I'm sure the fault is mine, I just don't understand what you are trying to say.

How many jobs connected to trials and court proceedings did Executive officer #45 create?

just_sayin

@John_C_87
How many jobs connected to trials and court proceedings did Executive officer #45 create?

According to Ask AI questions:

According to a report by the National Center for State Courts, President Trump's administration has created approximately 15,000 new jobs related to trials and court proceedings since taking office in 2017. These jobs include judges, prosecutors, public defenders, court administrators, and other support staff.

The report notes that the increase in jobs is largely due to the president's efforts to address the opioid epidemic and reduce crime through increased funding for drug treatment programs and law enforcement initiatives. Additionally, the administration's focus on immigration and border security has led to an increase in immigration courts and related positions.

It's worth noting that while the number of jobs created is significant, it is still a small fraction of the total number of jobs in the legal system. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were approximately 1.3 million jobs in the legal services industry as of May 2020.
References:

1. National Center for State Courts. (2020). "Trump Administration's Impact on the Judiciary." Retrieved from <https://www.ncsc.org/topics/trump-administration-impact-on-the-judiciary.aspx>
2. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). "Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2020." Retrieved from <https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm>;
3. The White House. (2020). "President Donald J. Trump's Management Agenda." Retrieved from <https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-orders/2020/02/14/presidential-executive-order-on-comprehensive-plan-for-rebuilding-and-strengthening-our-nations-public-defender-system/>;

So?  I don't understand what connection you are trying to make.  Can you explain?

MayCaesar

I think that you are asking one question and providing data pertaining to a different question. Whether certain statistical values across population change in the positive or negative relation has only loose connection with whether a particular individual's economical well-being changes. For instance, comparing the average-income American from 2019 with the average-income American from 2023 is no the same as comparing the specific American individual from 2019 who by 2023, due to career advancement, accumulation of capital, acquisition of new skills and potential change in the family situation, has gotten significantly wealthier.

I am certainly better off now than I was in 2019, by far, as my income has more than doubled even if we correct for the out-of-control inflation. But then, in 2019 I was a broke student, while now I am firmly a member of the upper-middle class. It sounds like you are more interested in comparing, say, the average member of the upper-middle class in 2019 to the average member of the upper-middle class today.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
I think that you are asking one question and providing data pertaining to a different question. Whether certain statistical values across population change in the positive or negative relation has only loose connection with whether a particular individual's economical well-being changes. For instance, comparing the average-income American from 2019 with the average-income American from 2023 is no the same as comparing the specific American individual from 2019 who by 2023, due to career advancement, accumulation of capital, acquisition of new skills and potential change in the family situation, has gotten significantly wealthier.

I am certainly better off now than I was in 2019, by far, as my income has more than doubled even if we correct for the out-of-control inflation. But then, in 2019 I was a broke student, while now I am firmly a member of the upper-middle class. It sounds like you are more interested in comparing, say, the average member of the upper-middle class in 2019 to the average member of the upper-middle class today.

I'm genuinely happy for your success.  I do think that the data I provided does show that on average most Americans are now worse off economically than they were before Biden was president.  These stats are hard to argue with:

• The average family of four is paying $13,717 per year or $1,143 per month more to purchase the same goods and services as in January 2021.
• Real wages are down over 5 percent since President Biden entered the Oval Office.
• Since President Biden took office, the average worker has lost over $4,900 in real wages.
• Gas prices are over 34 percent higher than when President Biden took office.
• Energy prices are up 28.5 percent from when President Biden took office.

The average family of four isn't making $13,717 dollars more per year to offset the increased costs of goods and services.  That's a staggering factoid that shows just how much Bidenflation has impacted the average worker in the US.  

I'm glad you have personally done well.  Can you make an argument that is convincing that most people are better off economically under Biden though?  

John_C_87

@MayCaesar
I am certainly better off now than I was in 2019, by far, as my income has more than doubled even if we correct for the out-of-control inflation.

You are denoting earned income without connection to unseen civil liabilities of debt created by that increased income. Example; Lord forbid now but. You are in position to catch a viral infection and suffer degrees of brain damage or develop a cancer of a vital organ. You are not in fact better off as a person you have been financially satisfied only. Right?

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

Again, my objection is not that there is a difference between individual cases and statistical averages, but that there is a difference between comparing economical well-being of the same person at two different time points and comparing statistical averages. The statement "Most Americans are worse off in 2023 than most Americans were in 2019" does not imply the statement "Most Americans in 2023 are worse off than they were in 2019".

As for your last question, I cannot make an argument you are asking me about, for I do not think that economical well-being is one-dimensional. It seems that the distribution of real purchasing power across the population in 2023 is worse than it was in 2019 - however, the actual assets people purchase have changed as well. It is hard to quantify the effect of something like ChatGPT on people's economical well-being: people did not have that in 2019, yet now they have, and it can save them a lot of time and money in certain situations - yet ChatGPT is very cheap and does not factor in the purchasing power calculations. A new car in 2023 is technologically superior to a new car (assuming the same model) in 2019, and its real price also has increased - in what direction has the price-to-value changed? I do not know.

If you want to know my personal opinion, I would say that both Trump's and Biden's economical policies are awful, although most of Trump's policies probably will deal less damage in the long run than Biden's. But I would not testify that in a court or publish a paper claiming that, as I just do not have a solid argument to make one way or the other.
I also do not see it in terms of living "under Trump" or "under Biden". Who the US president is is much less impactful than what the general cultural trends are. You can put a dog in the White House, and 4 years later the economy will still function decently well. Market economies like this do not fall to shenanigans of one old guy.

John_C_87

@just_sayin

So?  I don't understand what connection you are trying to make.  Can you explain?

You don't, the AI doesn't, or neither you and the A.I. understand?

In Theory if a person is " Medically ill " and is dying due to the illness. How does a bunch of voters making a false claim about a man becoming a President / Presadera make any difference? Neither of the duly elected Executive officers in fact addressed the contradiction of constitutional rights that has been taking place for some time. We can reword a United States Constitutional right as a more perfect truth when held in a list of all truths told by "we the people."

just_sayin

Its obvious that nobody is really able to defend what Biden has done to the economy.  He had so much going for him.  He was coming out of an unprecedented pandemic.  Yet, Biden's policies have made the average worker lose $4,900 in real wages.  The latest jobs report yet again for the 7th time this year lowered the job creation numbers of the previous month.  And 60 percent of the jobs reported were part time jobs - indicating that hiring has slowed dramatically.  Bidenflation has made the cost of everything skyrocket - from gas, transportation, and energy, to everything that uses gas, transportation, or energy.  

John_C_87

@just_sayin
Don't you mean the political election process has done to the economy, AKA voters and how they vote?

John_C_87

Bidenflation has made the cost of everything skyrocket
All this perfection from one man in four years are you sure the economic sitgma of loss value created by a gap in value between the numerical costs of payng the dept and cost of creating dept are way out of ballance.

just_sayin

@John_C_87
Don't you mean the political election process has done to the economy, AKA voters and how they vote? I d

No I do not.  The voters are not in charge of day to day federal policy.  Biden is the head of the federal government.  Voters may have voted for him, but Biden is responsible for his own actions.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I am about the same economically. This seems just an attack on renewable energy.

@just_sayin

"The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of mitigation."

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm

I am unfamiliar with this site, but I searched some of the facts and I think this is the source.

https://budget.house.gov/press-release/fact-check-setting-the-record-straight-on-bidenomics

Again, I don't know how reliable this is.

just_sayin

@Dreamer

I am unfamiliar with this site, but I searched some of the facts and I think this is the source.
https://budget.house.gov/press-release/fact-check-setting-the-record-straight-on-bidenomics
Again, I don't know how reliable this is.

Happy to help you.  See the .gov in the URL?  That means that it comes from the federal government.  The 'budget.house." part of the URL indicates it comes from the Congressional House Budget Committee.  Does that help?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: This heavily slanted propganda piece needs a fact check.

@just_sayin

This is obviously not bi-partisan, just the mention of Bidenomics proves this. Let alone using the Heritage foundation as the main source. Considering tobacco killed 500,000 Americans in 2020 I wouldn't want anything to do with that misinformation website.

"The Heritage Foundation has been criticized for taking positions that are favorable to the tobacco industry as well as for blocking action on climate change."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heritage-foundation/

  I am disappointed in myself that I couldn't see through this propaganda piece quicker. Yet another heat wave caused by climate change is slowing me down.

I am also sad that others could not do a better job debunking this. Just look around on the website and you will see this is a heavily partisan website. Very clever making it appear to bi-partisan at first glance.

I think this propaganda piece you mentioned was edited by George Santos who is involved in a scandal.

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148810036/the-latest-twist-in-the-george-santos-scandal

This is not the first time you have used non-credible sources from fox news a questionable source to John Stossel who is in the Koch's pocket to the vague Judith Curry. Jesus would be ashamed of you.

John_C_87

just_sayin said:

@John_C_87
Don't you mean the political election process has done to the economy, AKA voters and how they vote? I d

No I do not.  The voters are not in charge of day to day federal policy.  Biden is the head of the federal government.  Voters may have voted for him, but Biden is responsible for his own actions.

Voters influence federal policy by contacting and interactions with their state representatives. The distraction made is we exchange political agenda with constitutional protocol as there is much less work need by elected officials involving corrections if the problem is made to appear associated, as in connected to political parties. It clearly is not. 

. 

  

just_sayin

John_C_87 said:

just_sayin said:

@John_C_87
Don't you mean the political election process has done to the economy, AKA voters and how they vote? I d

No I do not.  The voters are not in charge of day to day federal policy.  Biden is the head of the federal government.  Voters may have voted for him, but Biden is responsible for his own actions.

Voters influence federal policy by contacting and interactions with their state representatives. The distraction made is we exchange political agenda with constitutional protocol as there is much less work need by elected officials involving corrections if the problem is made to appear associated, as in connected to political parties. It clearly is not. 

. 

  

I'm sorry John, I doubt that most who voted for Biden wanted him to screw up the country so bad.  According to the EIA's weekly gasoline prices, gas was nationally $2.379 for the week before Biden's administration.  While September 2023's average is $3.807.  That's a 60% increase in gasoline costs alone.  These energy and transportation costs are passed on to consumers, which means everything we buy is more expensive.  

Since Mr. Biden became president, the median home price has jumped over 27%, and interest rates have risen from 2.8% to 7.2%. Those two factors have caused the monthly mortgage payment on a median-priced home to more than double, from $979 to $2,075. - Heritage Foundation

Let's blame Biden for what Biden did, rather than blaming other people.  You know that would be a good campaign slogan

Blame Biden for Bidenomics 

John_C_87

@just_sayin

Let's blame Biden for what Biden did, rather than blaming other people.  You know that would be a good campaign slogan

1. Executive officer Biden is not a President that is an Article II United States Constitutional issue not relevant to this discussion.

2. The price of fuel is reflective of Congressional legislation which was taken place decades ago so the failure in price stability is spread out for several reasons, over several decades, by several different elected officers. Short story is correct Executive officer Biden did not help the costs of fuel and for the record as truth the issue had been created by republicans. Some say they are Democrats some say they are Republican however the facts of the matter describe them all as republican.

3. I understand the housing market and prices in a different economic context than you and it is very complex mathematically. Again, we are getting into Axion numerical inconsistencies of cost and the management of burdens of debt outside the scope of interest on loan payments of capital such as homes. The fundamental warning sign may be simply vewed in how the National debt clocks relate time and the United States Federal Reserve Note. 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Enough of this anti-Biden anti-green Propganda.

@just_sayin

Per politifact assigning debt to a president is misleading. The world is in real trouble climate change is urgent. Heritage website is unreliable when the topic is climate change. Climate change makes wildfires worse. Did you notice the wildfires?

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/may/22/hakeem-jeffries/did-donald-trump-rack-up-more-debt-than-any-other/

just_sayin

@Dreamer

It would be a lie to say that Biden's policies have not led to higher prices.  This past week the news reported Biden had enacted policies which prohibit the transportation of fossil fuels by rail.  This will increase costs further.  Biden had already increased regulations, canceled drilling leases and restricted production.  
Biden's war on energy has led to increased energy costs which have increased the cost of anything that uses gas or energy - which is everything!  

Heritage website is unreliable when the topic is climate change. 

The leading commentator for Heritage on the Climate has provided technical testimony to Congress at least a half dozen times that I am aware of.  It seems like the guy is actually an expert and his counsel is sought after.  

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Enough enough enough! Stop trolling!

@just_sayin

Fox news is a questionable source. I've told you before that if you use that source I will treat you like a troll. Now I will follow through. Goodbye.

"Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda, Poor Sources, Numerous Failed Fact Checks"

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias/

just_sayin

Dreamer said:

@just_sayin

Fox news is a questionable source. I've told you before that if you use that source I will treat you like a troll. Now I will follow through. Goodbye.

"Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda, Poor Sources, Numerous Failed Fact Checks"

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias/

Seriously?  Fox News is one of the 2 most cited sources for politics - period.  Would you apply the same rationale to CNN or MSNBC who are listed as being left wing biased on your site?  You may not like Fox News, but the news article is not in dispute.  Are you disputing that fact?  It should alarm you that many left wing 'news' sites did not report that story.  

Here is the story on a local ABC affiliate - https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/biden-admin-overturns-trump-era-rule-allowing-fossil-fuel-transport-by-train-us-department-of-transportation-liquified-natural-gas-lng-senator-ted-cruz

Since the head of ABC news, George Stephanopolos, was literally Bill Clinton's main political adviser, that should disqualify ABC News also, but your BOGUS site doesn't list ABC National News as the ULTRA LEFTWING PROPAGANDA SITE that it is.  

Here is the story from Common Dreams - https://www.commondreams.org/news/lng-bomb-trains
Surprise!  Its not listed as a leftwing propaganda site on your site.  But it should be.  

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Joe Biden Has Again Made Everyone Poorer

The average household income in the U.S. fell from $76,330 in 2021 to $74,580 in 2022, a decline of 2.3%, according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

“Income estimates are expressed in real or 2022 dollars to reflect changes in the cost of living. Between 2021 and 2022, inflation rose 7.8%; this is the largest annual increase in the cost-of-living adjustment since 1981,” the Census Bureau said in a press release.

BIDEN IS TO BLAME FOR BIDENFLATION

John_C_87

@just_sayin

So, what you are saying is things done by the last dozen or more Executive Officers have achieved a loss for the economy but raise the cost of living. Creating an economy that was regulated to increase in sizes then become more expensive while it grows on those inside it?

Sounds like something I established several years ago by describing the relationship between debt and direct cost of paying off that debt. Describing lack of movement or shifts in the axial balance of the Federal Reserve Note and how A "legal note" can become less effective with time and increase costs of living. I am no more of a fan of Biden or Trump than anyone I look for similarities and measure those connections by duration overall as possible influence on the economy.

just_sayin

This factoid alone, is enough for me to vote against Biden:

• The average family of four is paying $13,717 per year or $1,143 per month more to purchase the same goods and services as in January 2021.