#the president doesnt have authority over that sector | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

patriotsnet · 4 years ago

Text

Do Republicans Or Democrats Give More To Charity

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/do-republicans-or-democrats-give-more-to-charity/

Do Republicans Or Democrats Give More To Charity

The Relationship Between Generosity And Political Affiliation And Gender

Who LIES More- Republicans or Democrats?

Most people tip their hair stylists, while only 27% tip their hotel housekeeper.

+1.63%

Tipping can be a social and cultural maelstrom. And social media doesnt always help.

A National Basketball Association player who has a $30 million contract drew internet ire last week after leaving a $13.97 tip on a $487.13 bill. Andre Roberson of the Oklahoma City Thunder made headlines for the paltry tip, and the strong reaction shows just how emotional the question of tipping can be.

But it wasnt quite as clear-cut as it seemed. Roberson released a statement on Twitter TWTR, +1.63% saying he was misrepresented, saying he bought one bottle of liquor for $487 at a bar, around five times the retail price and rounded it out to $500. Roberson said he also had a $100 tab on shots for which he left a $200 tip. I thought hed be grateful for the $200 tip, he wrote of the barman who served him.

Meanwhile, some restaurants have banned tipping while Uber is finally encouraging riders to open their wallets to drivers who go the extra mile.

See more:Meet the most generous tipper in America

Some of the findings seemed to play out in real life when three supporters of President Donald Trump left a $450 tip for a Washington, D.C. waitress in January, though they were from Texas, not the relatively more generous northeast.

Dont miss:How much to tip everyone

Also read: Is this the worst tipper in America?

Statistics On Us Generosity

In this section youll find charts and graphs laying out the most important numbers in American philanthropy. They document how much we give, how that has changed over time, what areas we give to, and what mechanisms we use to donate. There are figures here on where charities get their money, how many people offer volunteer labor, the demographic factors that influence generosity , and how various states and cities differ. The top foundations and donor-advised funds are ranked by their giving. We present surprising information on overseas aid, and statistics on how the U.S. compares to other countries when it comes to donating to charity.

Beto Orourke Other Democrats See The Downside Of Releasing Tax Returns

CHARLOTTESVILLE About 24 hours after presidential hopeful Beto ORourke released his tax returns from the past decade, a University of Virginia student asked him why he didnt donate more money to charities.

ORourke, a former congressman from El Paso, and his wife reported in their 2017 tax return that they donated $1,166 which was one-third of 1 percent of their $370,412 of income that year. ORourke told reporters on Wednesday that, over the years, he and his wife have donated thousands of dollars more that they did not itemize because it wasnt important for us to take the deduction. The campaign has yet to provide updated numbers.

Ive served in public office since 2005. I do my best to contribute to the success of my community, of my state and, now, of my country, ORourke said in responding to the student on Tuesday night. Im doing everything that I can right now, spending this time with you not with our kiddos, not back home in El Paso because I want to sacrifice everything to make sure that we meet this moment of truth with everything that weve got.

ORourke is not the only Democratic candidate who has had personal finances questioned at a time when many voters are frustrated by the ever-growing economic divide in the country. One by one, Democratic candidates have released their tax returns something that President Trump has refused to do in an attempt at transparency.

Also Check: How Many Presidents Have The Republicans Tried To Impeach

Charitable Giving By State: Are Republicans More Generous Than Democrats Or Just More Religious

It turns out that the old Bushism about compassionate conservatism may not be a myth after all. In a new analysis of Internal Revenue Service tax records, the Chronicle of Philanthropy on Monday ranked U.S. cities and states by how much money their residents give to charity. The bottom line? People in red states are more generous with their green.

The study, which compared IRS data from 2012 with data from 2006, showed that the 17 most generous states — as measured by the percentage of their income they donated to charity — voted for Mitt Romney in the last presidential election. The seven states at the bottom of the list, meanwhile, voted for Barack Obama.

Exactly why is a bit of a mystery. Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the data only showed how much money people gave away, not which types of organizations they gave to. But generally speaking, she said its fair to assume that political ideology aligns to some extent with ideas about charitable giving.

Not to be too simplistic about it, but if you believe that government should take care of basic social services, then youre going to go that way, Palmer told International Business Times. If you think charities should take care of things, and not government, then youre probably going to give more generously to charity.

Got a news tip? . Follow me on Twitter .

Volunteering In The Us

This data comes from detailed time logs that statisticians ask householders to keep. In less strict definitions like phone surveys, more like 45 percent of the U.S. population say they volunteered some time to a charitable cause within the last year.

Current estimates of the dollar value of volunteered time range from $179 billion per year to more than twice that, depending on how you count.Volunteering is closely associated with donating cash as well. One Harris study showed that Americans who volunteered gave 11 times as much money to charity in a year as those who did not volunteer.

An interesting pattern emerges if one studies giving by income level. As incomes rise, more and more of the people in that bracket make gifts to charity. The sizes of their gifts tend to rise as well. However: if you look at average donations as a fraction of funds available, they tend to level off at around 2-3 percent of income.

Religious faith is a central influence on giving. Religious people are much more likely than the non-religious to donate to charitable causesincluding secular causesand they give much more.

Among Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike, almost exactly half of the group averaged $100-$999 in annual charitable donations at the time of this 2005 poll. There was virtually no difference among the parties in the size of that moderate-giving group, so those results were not included in the graph to the left.

Also Check: What Did Republicans Gain From The Compromise Of 1877

How Political Ideology Influences Charitable Giving

Many issues seem to divide Democrats and Republicans, and new research has found one more: philanthropy.

Red counties, which are overwhelmingly Republican, tend to report higher charitable contributions than Democratic-dominated blue counties, according to a new study on giving, although giving in blue counties is often bolstered by a combination of charitable donations and higher taxes.

But as red or blue counties become more politically competitive, charitable giving tends to fall.

Theres something about the like-mindedness where perhaps the comfort level rises, said one of the authors of the study, Robert K. Christensen, associate professor at the George W. Romney Institute of Public Service and Ethics at Brigham Young University. They feel safe redistributing their wealth voluntarily. It also matters for compulsory giving.

The study was conducted by four research professors who set out to explore how political differences affect charitable giving. It was published on Oct. 20 in the academic journal Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. The other authors were Laurie E. Paarlberg of Indiana UniversityPurdue University Indianapolis, Rebecca Nesbit of the University of Georgia and Richard M. Clerkin of North Carolina State University.

Dr. Christensen said the team had analyzed more than 3,000 counties, but it did not reveal the county-by-county breakdowns. Its hard to pull those counties out because of the control variables, he said.

Charitable Giving Does Not Match Government Aid

Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly.

The evidence shows that private philanthropy cant compensate for the loss of government provision, Dr. Nesbit said. Its not equal. What government can put into these things is so much more than what we see through private philanthropy.

On the other hand, private philanthropy can do many things better than government aid, as in being responsive to a need and willing to fail without political fallout.

The studys authors make the case for a combination approach.

Theyre complementary means of redistribution of wealth rather than substitutions for each other, Dr. Christensen said. We cant put all of our eggs in one basket.

You May Like: Who Are The Republicans On The Ballot

Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals

Second, a much larger body of research has long demonstrated that, all things being equal, conservatives tend to be happier overall than their liberal neighbors are. This is truer for social conservatives than for fiscal conservatives, and the more conservative a conservative is, the happier he or she seems to be. Thats not nothing.

A massive study published earlier this year, involving five different data samples from 16 Western countries spanning more than four decades, adds more meat to this topic. These scholars from the University of Southern California found, as they put it, In sum, conservatives reported greater meaning in life and greater life satisfaction than liberals.

Of course, both qualities are much deeper and richer than happiness itself. This was the robust and consistent finding in the 16 distinct countries examined. It was generally truer for social conservatives than their fiscal brethren, and the greater-meaning-in-life slope spiked upward among individuals who were very conservative.

These scholars explain in their academic parlance that this was true for conservatives at all reporting periods . This is a significant finding. Conservatives experience greater meaning in life across their lives generally, but also daily and at most given moments throughout the day. The researchers conclude these findings are robust and that there is some unique aspect of political conservativism that provides people with meaning and purpose in life.

Conservatives Are Satisfied With Their Family Lives

Do NFL Teams Give More to Republicans or Democrats?

New research released by the Institute for Family Studies demonstrates that conservatives tend to be much more completely satisfied with their family lives compared to their liberal friends and neighbors. Forty-one percent of both liberals and moderates report being completely satisfied with their family lives, while 52 percent of conservatives do.

Conservatives are also vastly more likely than liberals to believe marriage is essential in creating and maintaining strong families. They are also much more likely to actually be married, 62 versus 39 percent, thus benefiting from all the ways marriage improves overall well-being and contentment, personal happiness, economic security, long-term employment, longevity, better physical and mental health, and more.

These scholars explain that regardless of other basic life characteristics such as family income, marital status, age, educational attainment, race/ethnicity, and church attendance, being a conservative increases the odds of being completely satisfied with family life by 23 percent, a considerable positive impact given the centrality of these other life factors. Married men and women who believe marriage is needed to create strong families have 67 percent greater odds of being completely content with their own family life than married couples who do not believe this.

You May Like: Who Are The 10 Republicans Who Voted For Impeachment

Poorer Conservatives More Generous Than Wealthy Liberals New Study

Respected non-government sector newspaper The Philanthropy Chronicle collated the itemized charity deductions on the tax returns of hundreds of millions of Americans between 2006 and 2012, the latest year available. While only about a third of all givers write off their charity expenses, the sums included about 80 percent of all donations in the country.

The Extreme Views Of The Donor Class

The main finding of the research is that the policy views of elite donors are more extreme than the views of partisan voters at large. They also vary widely by party.

If you look at Republican donors, explains Malhotra, they have much more extreme views than ordinary Republicans on economic issues, such as taxation, the redistribution of wealth, and spending on social programs. For example, a good number of Republican voters want universal health care, but very few Republican donors want that. On the other hand, Republican donors and voters have very similar views on social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage. They are not out of line in that arena.

Malhotra and Broockman found a similar pattern among Democratic donors and partisans, but in a mirror image. Democratic donors are, if anything, a little more liberal on economic issues than Democratic partisans, says Malhotra. But their social views are much more liberal than partisans, especially when you look at issues like the death penalty.

Don’t Miss: Who Won More Democrats Or Republicans

Who Gives More To Charity Democrats Or Republicans

About Patt Morrison

Patt Morrison

The ongoing calls for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to issue additional years of his tax returns havent ceased.

Romney has faced criticism for his reasoning that doing so would violate his religious freedom because it would reveal exactly how much money he has tithed to his Mormon church. Democrats continue to press the issue, but should they be so vocal about taking a look at charitable contributions?

According to philanthropy.com, a website that tracks charitable giving state-by-state, Utah tops the list of giving, with residents donating 10.2 percent of their discretionary income to charities. Utah is a solidly red state and went for John McCain 62 percent to 24 percent in 2008 and it has a large Mormon contingent.

Blue state New Hampshire is bringing up the rear with residents of the The Granite State donating only 2.5 percent of their discretionary income to philanthropic organizations. But if you tweak the numbers to remove donations to religious charities the giving evens out some.

Republican Donate More To Charity Than Democrats

8 comments:

Anonymoussaid…

Just this weekend, in an ongoing election year discussion with my sister, I stated my experience is and has been when Democrats see others money or wealth, they want it and/or want to tell them what to do with it… I was also informed that others are not like me. Yours being the very first site I checked regarding this subject, I would like to thank you for the confirmation that this happens elsewhere, just not in my “little” world. Bellyburke

Anonymoussaid…

Thanks, I try to leave informative bits of information that are skipped over in the drive by soundbites and stereotype attacks that are out there. Sorry I have’t posted more lately.To go beyond that, I think that Republicans- particularly religious republicans give a lot more than Democrats because we beleive we have a moral duty to give to charity. Democrats seem to want to government to control the “giving” even though that actually corrupts the ‘charity’ aspects of the gift when you ‘have to do it�� or the IRS will come knocking.

Read Also: Who Controls The Senate Republicans Or Democrats

Giving Under Different Governments

A change in government didnt seem to change peoples donations of money to charities, but there did seem to be an increase in time given to volunteering when the Coalition and Conservative governments were in power.

The exception to this came from the Greens. When Labour were in power from 1997-2010, Green Party supporters gave 182% more of their income to charity than Labour supporters did although this fell to 85% under the Coalition, and fell again when the Conservatives went into government on their own in 2015.

In terms of volunteering, under a Labour government, Green supporters gave no more of their time than did Labour supporters. After 2015, Greens increased their volunteering time by 56%.

Do Your Political Views Make You Charitable

24 Jul, 2019

Professor Sarah Brown,Professor Karl Taylor

A new working paper asks whether people on the left or right give more to charity

Student volunteers at the University of Essex

In 2017, people in the UK gave over £10 billion to charity, and ONS figures suggest that unpaid labour in the form of volunteering is worth over £20 billion.

But what motivates us to give our money or time? Theres existing research which shows that we give in order to feel good, or to look good to others, but we wanted to look at another motivation: our political leanings.

Also Check: Should Republicans Vote In Democratic Primary

Data Sources: Irs Forms 990

The Form 990 is a document that nonprofit organizations file with the IRS annually. We leverage finance and accountability data from it to form Encompass ratings. .

Impact & Results

This score estimates the actual impact a nonprofit has on the lives of those it serves, and determines whether it is making good use of donor resources to achieve that impact.

Impact & Results Score

Leftist Media And Academia Tell The Public The Opposite

12/29/10 – Stossel, Republicans donate much more than Democrats

Some liberals might argue that religious, conservative republicans are happier simply because they are mentally ill; they are disassociated with reality and just dont know any better. They claim this is even demonstrated in scientific research. In fact, one articles first line in reporting this research was quite blunt: Anyone whos wanted to dismiss Republican politics as straightforwardly mean now has some data to back them up. Lands sakes.

Some research did appear to show this, and it got a great deal of press. Retraction Watch, however, tells us it had some serious mistakes in its calculations, and an erratum was published by the American Journal of Political Science. In fact, Retraction Watch reports, The descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed. The data shows a strong correlation between liberalism and psychoticism, not conservatism. This correction was not widely reported for some curious reason.

Finally, if you had to guess who are more generous with their money and volunteering their time to help those in need, would you guess Democrats or Republicans? Of course, its Democrats. Republicans only care for themselves and their own pocketbook. In fact, dont they want to actually punish the poor for not working hard enough? Well, you would be right if stereotypes were the arbiter of truth. But what does objective research tell us?

Recommended Reading: What News Channel Do Republicans Watch

Percentage Of Us Donations Going Tovarious Causes

Nonprofits have grown faster than government and faster than the business sector over the last generation, even during boom periods.

The figures charted here actually underestimate the fraction of American manpower that goes into charitable workbecause they show only paid employment, while volunteers carry out a large share of the labor poured into these groups. Various calculations of the cash value of donated labor suggest that at least an additional 50 percent of output by charities takes place invisibly because it is produced by volunteers. Youll find more statistics on American volunteering in Graphs 8 and 9.

Charitable activity is becoming a bigger and bigger part of Americas total economy. For perspective, consider that annual U.S. defense spending totals 4.5 percent of GDP. The nonprofit sector surpassed the vaunted military-industrial complex in economic scope way back in 1993.

Real Rise In Us Giving

After adjusting for inflation, charitable giving by Americans was close to seven times as big in 2016 as it was 62 years earlier.

Of course, one reason total giving went up is because the U.S. population almost doubled. But if we recalculate inflation-adjusted charitable giving on a per capita basis, we see that has also soared: by 3½ times. Charitable causes are very lucky to have a remarkably expansive American economy behind them, and a standard of living that refuses to stagnate.

What if we calculate charitable giving as a proportion of all national production ? The math reveals that over the last 60 years, donations as a proportion of our total annual output increasedbut only very slightly. For most of the last lifetime, giving has hovered right around 2 percent of our total national treasure.

Two percent of GDP is a huge sum, particularly in comparison to other countries . But it’s interesting that even as we have become a much wealthier people in the post-WWII era, the fraction we give away hasn’t risen. There seems to be something stubborn about that 2 percent rate.

Keep in mind too that religious charities tend to have less access to supplemental funds than other nonprofits. Hospitals and colleges charge users fees to supplement their donated income; other nonprofits sell goods; many museums charge admission; some charities receive government grants. Churches and religious charities, however, operate mostly on their donated funds depicted in this graph.

Recommended Reading: What Cities Are Run By Republicans

What Elite Donors Want

Big-money donors, both Democrat and Republican, not only have more political influence than the average voter, they also have more extreme beliefs.

The outsize political influence of elite donors, whose views tend to be more extreme than that of mainstream voters, partly explains why political polarization is on the rise. | Illustration by Alvaro Dominguez

In November 2012, newly elected Democratic members of the United States Congress got about a week to savor their victories. Then, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee advised them to start hitting the phones for 3-4 hours per day. Who were they supposed to be calling? Mainly, elite donors the fewer than 1% of Americans who give candidates more than $200 in any given election cycle.

It isnt news that politicians court elite donors or that elite donors have greater political access and influence than the typical voter. But, as Stanford Graduate School of Business political economist Neil Malhotra points out in an article recently published in Public Opinion Quarterly, we know remarkably little about what they actually want from government.

This is a particularly relevant issue during the current, seemingly endless, election cycle, in which the battle for control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government is unusually contentious and fraught with implications for the future of the nation.

Do Democrats Hate Charity

Another round of COVID-19 relief from Congress is on life support but not dead, as centrist Democrats have begun to pressure Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi toward compromise. That would mean finding some middle ground between the $3 trillion House HEROES Act, with its bailout for profligate blue-state governments, and the Republican $500 billion skinny bill. If serious negotiations do ensue, there is one provision on which Senate Republicans should not budge: a strong new form of tax relief for individual charitable giving. Its a provision both important in its own right and revealing of a larger philosophical difference between the parties when it comes to charity.

The latest skinny Senate bill would specifically have expanded the so-called above-the-line tax deduction included in the original CARES Act, which authorized a $300 deduction even for those who do not itemize their tax returns. The Senate bill proposed to double that amount for 2020 taxpayers, to $600 for individuals and $1,200 for those filing a joint return. The House bill included no such provision, or even an extension of a less-generous version included in the first COVID-19 relief bill.

The above-the-line deduction proposed by Republicans provides an incentive for all taxpayers, not just the wealthy, to give to charity.

This piece originally appeared at the Washington Examiner

______________________

Recommended Reading: How Many Republicans Are In The Us House

0 notes

statetalks · 4 years ago

Text

Do Republicans Or Democrats Give More To Charity

The Relationship Between Generosity And Political Affiliation And Gender

Who LIES More- Republicans or Democrats?

Most people tip their hair stylists, while only 27% tip their hotel housekeeper.

+1.63%

Tipping can be a social and cultural maelstrom. And social media doesnt always help.

Meanwhile, some restaurants have banned tipping while Uber is finally encouraging riders to open their wallets to drivers who go the extra mile.

See more:Meet the most generous tipper in America

Dont miss:How much to tip everyone

Also read: Is this the worst tipper in America?

Statistics On Us Generosity

Beto Orourke Other Democrats See The Downside Of Releasing Tax Returns

Also Check: How Many Presidents Have The Republicans Tried To Impeach

Charitable Giving By State: Are Republicans More Generous Than Democrats Or Just More Religious

Got a news tip? . Follow me on Twitter .

Volunteering In The Us

Religious faith is a central influence on giving. Religious people are much more likely than the non-religious to donate to charitable causesincluding secular causesand they give much more.

Also Check: What Did Republicans Gain From The Compromise Of 1877

How Political Ideology Influences Charitable Giving

Many issues seem to divide Democrats and Republicans, and new research has found one more: philanthropy.

But as red or blue counties become more politically competitive, charitable giving tends to fall.

Charitable Giving Does Not Match Government Aid

On the other hand, private philanthropy can do many things better than government aid, as in being responsive to a need and willing to fail without political fallout.

The studys authors make the case for a combination approach.

Theyre complementary means of redistribution of wealth rather than substitutions for each other, Dr. Christensen said. We cant put all of our eggs in one basket.

You May Like: Who Are The Republicans On The Ballot

Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals

Conservatives Are Satisfied With Their Family Lives

Do NFL Teams Give More to Republicans or Democrats?

You May Like: Who Are The 10 Republicans Who Voted For Impeachment

Poorer Conservatives More Generous Than Wealthy Liberals New Study

The Extreme Views Of The Donor Class

The main finding of the research is that the policy views of elite donors are more extreme than the views of partisan voters at large. They also vary widely by party.

Don’t Miss: Who Won More Democrats Or Republicans

Who Gives More To Charity Democrats Or Republicans

About Patt Morrison

Patt Morrison

The ongoing calls for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to issue additional years of his tax returns havent ceased.

Republican Donate More To Charity Than Democrats

8 comments:

Anonymoussaid…

Read Also: Who Controls The Senate Republicans Or Democrats

Giving Under Different Governments

In terms of volunteering, under a Labour government, Green supporters gave no more of their time than did Labour supporters. After 2015, Greens increased their volunteering time by 56%.

Do Your Political Views Make You Charitable

24 Jul, 2019

Professor Sarah Brown,Professor Karl Taylor

A new working paper asks whether people on the left or right give more to charity

Student volunteers at the University of Essex

In 2017, people in the UK gave over £10 billion to charity, and ONS figures suggest that unpaid labour in the form of volunteering is worth over £20 billion.

Also Check: Should Republicans Vote In Democratic Primary

Data Sources: Irs Forms 990

The Form 990 is a document that nonprofit organizations file with the IRS annually. We leverage finance and accountability data from it to form Encompass ratings. .

Impact & Results

This score estimates the actual impact a nonprofit has on the lives of those it serves, and determines whether it is making good use of donor resources to achieve that impact.

Impact & Results Score

Leftist Media And Academia Tell The Public The Opposite

12/29/10 – Stossel, Republicans donate much more than Democrats

Recommended Reading: What News Channel Do Republicans Watch

Percentage Of Us Donations Going Tovarious Causes

Nonprofits have grown faster than government and faster than the business sector over the last generation, even during boom periods.

Real Rise In Us Giving

After adjusting for inflation, charitable giving by Americans was close to seven times as big in 2016 as it was 62 years earlier.

Recommended Reading: What Cities Are Run By Republicans

What Elite Donors Want

Big-money donors, both Democrat and Republican, not only have more political influence than the average voter, they also have more extreme beliefs.

Do Democrats Hate Charity

The above-the-line deduction proposed by Republicans provides an incentive for all taxpayers, not just the wealthy, to give to charity.

This piece originally appeared at the Washington Examiner

______________________

Recommended Reading: How Many Republicans Are In The Us House

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/do-republicans-or-democrats-give-more-to-charity/

0 notes

asfeedin · 5 years ago

Text

FIFA medical chief doesn’t want games played before Sept. 1

FIFA’s medical committee chairman, Michel D’Hooghe, says he believes football should not resume until September at the earliest because of the coronavirus pandemic.

D’Hooghe, speaking to Sky Sports, described the pandemic as the “most dramatic situation we have lived in since the Second World War.”

— Stream new episodes of ESPN FC Monday-Friday on ESPN+ — Stream every episode of 30 for 30: Soccer Stories on ESPN+

Asked if he would recommend football not returning before September, he said, “That is my personal opinion. The world is not ready for competitive football. I hope this can change very quickly, and I sincerely hope it, but it’s not the case today. Today, you need more patience.”

“Football remains always a contact sport, and one of the first things that everybody says is that you should avoid contact for the moment,” D’Hooghe added. “So football can only be possible if contacts can be possible again.”

• Euro 2020: Postponed until 2021 • Champions League: Suspended indefinitely • Premier League: Suspended indefinitely • La Liga: Suspended indefinitely • Bundesliga: Likely no fans for rest of 2020 • Ligue 1: Suspended indefinitely • Serie A: Team training can resume May 18 • Copa America: Postponed until 2021 • MLS: Suspended through June 8

UEFA has given European domestic leagues a May 25 deadline to provide details on if and how they can complete their seasons.

On Tuesday, France became the latest country to announce that the 2019-20 season is over, with no sporting events allowed until at least September. The Netherlands, Belgium and Argentina also have done so.

La Liga president Javier Tebas questioned the decision made by France to end their competition early.

“I don’t understand why there would be more danger in playing football behind closed doors, following La Liga’s precautionary measures, than working in a factory or in an assembly line,” he said. “If important economic sectors cannot restart, in a safe and controlled manner, they could end up disappearing. That could happen to professional football. In other countries, teams are already training. That’s the example to follow.”

— ESPN’s Insider Notebook: Arsenal in the UCL? Forget it

Germany’s Bundesliga teams were among the first to resume training in Europe and have plans to restart competition within weeks. The English Premier League is hoping to resume in June.

La Liga received a boost late Tuesday afternoon, with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez announcing that professional teams can begin individual training May 4. However, La Liga’s protocol, which was presented last week to the government, has yet to be approved by the health authorities.

Italy, the first league to halt competition because of the coronavirus pandemic on March 9, has yet to give the green light for the competition to resume, despite Serie A clubs recently voting unanimously to complete the campaign.

Source link

Tags: 1, blog - fifa, chief, doesnt, English Premier League, FIFA, French Ligue 1, Games, Italian Serie A, medical, played, Sept, Spanish Primera División

from WordPress https://ift.tt/3eXapZb via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #Asfeed.in #asfeed #asfeedin #asfeed blog

0 notes

wandashifflett · 5 years ago

Text

The Base Doesn’t Trust D.C. Conservatives Anymore

The need to reconstitute and reinvigorate the movement that has become establishment conservatism is a well-worn theme these days. Though nearly everyone recognizes the need, agreement about the way forward is nowhere in sight. In the run up to November, however, there is an increased urgency to find answers to the question of what the conservative movement, and the institutional Republican leaders who claim to be conservatives, have given to their voters sufficient to motivate them to come out again in November?

Too often the base has faced serial disappointment, a direct reflection of the failure of GOP and conservative leaders to adhere to the promises and processes put in place to avoid this disenchantment. More to the point, this disenchantment was precisely what D.C. Republicans swore up and down would never again occur if we just voted for enough of them.

Well, it didn’t happen that way.

There is war in the streets. Statues are being toppled, individuals harassed, violent crime is surging, and the responses from congressional Republicans ring hollow: attempts at police reform (filibustered by Senate Democrats) and efforts to replace Columbus Day with Juneteenth. Well-meaning efforts, perhaps, but demonstrably weak and, practically speaking, displaying all the leadership qualities of a flailing pre-teen.

The conservative movement’s response to this inaction, meanwhile, has been limp op-eds, hashtag campaigns, and pointless beard stroking. “Leading conservative voices” are busy tagging white working-class Trump voters as racists. The White House, outside of a great speech and a welcome (if delayed) effort to charge individuals engaged in wanton destruction, seems otherwise intent on avoiding the culture war.

The Supreme Court, for which conservatives have fought mightily to secure a majority, has handed down a decidedly mixed bag of decisions this month. Two wins, one for religious schools and an exemption for religious employers from Obamacare’s birth control mandate, were offset by three big blows: the Court’s absurd argument pushing back against the Trump administration’s efforts to unroll President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, a kick in the teeth to the pro-life movement in June Medical v. Russo, and Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch authoring an opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, whose ripple effects will fundamentally transform how traditional conservatives are allowed to engage with society.

As Democrats sought to capitalize on their Supreme Court wins by enforcing the Equality Act, congressional Republicans did their best impression of dead plants. Only three Senate Republicans could be found to come to the floor and defend the way of life for millions of well-intended and sincere people of faith. The “representative” in representative government is apparently now viewed as merely a suggestion.

Of course, after two years of unified Republican control of the House, Senate, and the White House, in the first half of the Trump administration, Congressional Republicans only had corporate tax cuts, more war in Yemen, and a legal industrial hemp sector to show for it. So perhaps there should be no surprise over their limp reaction to today’s events.

This is all happening against the backdrop of an aggressive “woke” corporate culture working to make anything that’s not a progressive point of view socially unacceptable. From social media, to the financial industry, to Hollywood, even to sports commentary, the corporations that now act as the gatekeepers for access to American culture are systematically enforcing a code of Wokeness on their forums, platforms, and business models—ostracizing anyone who thinks otherwise.

Republicans in Congress have very little to say about it besides shrugging about how we can’t interfere with “private companies” like Google. As if Google was just another mainstreet mom and pop and not a corporate hegemon now controlling 90 percent of how the world sees the information they search for, rendering it more powerful and resourceful than some small countries.

Even President Trump, whose election represented a backlash against the corporatism of both institutional and establishment Democrats and Republicans, is struggling to focus on the issues that carried him to the White House.

While Joe Biden gave a speech this week touting the benefits of an America First economic plan—Trump’s signature issue—it was revealed that the White House has benched a Buy America executive order “amid objections from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.” Trump’s administration has always hosted tension between populist economic interests and a neoliberal influence. Lately, the latter appears to be winning.

In short, conservatism as both a way of life and a political movement is in crisis. And there has been none of the self-reflection, humility, or behavioral changes that should accompany the obvious failures that have led us to this point. Instead, we get furious justifications, condescending dismissals, navel-gazing about the economic theories of comparative advantage. Or worse, blanket apathy.

After years of our conservative institutions and leaders telling us “they have it in hand,” the last month has unmasked their claim as mistaken at best, and willfully exaggerated, at worst. Apathy and self-righteous justifications will be met by apathy and disgust by the voters in November. The only thing that can begin to bring this movement back to relevance is an intellectually humble reevaluation of how D.C. conservatism lost its ability to create a clear and coherent way forward for those who seek its leadership. But there is precious little time for the ship to begin righting itself. That work must begin in earnest—and begin immediately.

D.C.’s conservative movement needs a gut check, and they need one fast.

from Rayfield Review News https://therayfield.com/the-base-doesnt-trust-d-c-conservatives-anymore from The Ray Field https://therayfieldreview.tumblr.com/post/623457581678100480

0 notes

therayfieldreview · 5 years ago

Text

The Base Doesn’t Trust D.C. Conservatives Anymore

Well, it didn’t happen that way.

D.C.’s conservative movement needs a gut check, and they need one fast.

from Rayfield Review News https://therayfield.com/the-base-doesnt-trust-d-c-conservatives-anymore

0 notes

omgmicheal01me · 6 years ago

Text

Trump tells Trudeau he will press China to release detained Canadians

WASHINGTONU.S. President Donald Trump said Thursday he would press Chinas president Xi Jinping to release two detained Canadians when he meets with him next week at the G20 summit, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sat listening. Trudeau was respectful, but eyed his host warily as Trump responded to reporters questions in the Oval Office during a photo opportunity about the fallout from Canadas arrest of Meng Wanzhou, Huaweis chief financial officer. Trudeaus third official meeting in Washington with the unpredictable president went as well as any Canadian official had expected, and the main takeaway was the apparent restoration of normal relations between Trudeau and Trump after last years disastrous G7 meeting in Charlevoix. As if to confirm the Canadian teams view expressed privately to reporters, Trump tweeted afterward it was his great honor to host the Canadian prime minister. Trumps tone stood in stark contrast to his insulting tweets last year that Trudeau was meek, mild, weak and dishonest. Trump said he will meet with Xi in Osaka next week and would make a request that China release the detained Canadians if asked, or at Justins request. I will represent him well. We have a meeting set up with President Xi and its obviously on the big transaction that were talking about and negotiatin but anything that I can do to help Canada, I will be doing, said Trump. At his own news conference later in the day, Trudeau said he went on to have an extended conversation with Trump and senior Administration officials about the plight of Canadians Michael Kovrig, a former diplomat, and Michael Spavor and other challenges that China is presenting, not just to Canada, but to different sectors of the global economy, and we certainly agree to continue to work together as friends and allies to resolve these and other issues. Pressed about whether Trump committed to any concrete action on Canadas behalf, Trudeau was cautious. We absolutely expect the subject of the two Canadians who are detained in an arbitrary and unfair manner in China will be on the agenda, Trudeau said in French. We expect that all our allies and thats what theyve done by the way across the world not just the Americans but many of our allies have raised with the Chinese authorities and leadership it is unacceptable that they have detained two Canadians in an unfair and arbitrary manner. Trudeau declined to say whether he asked Trump to drop the extradition request or charges against Meng, who is daughter of the founder of Huawei, the jewel in Chinas corporate crown, saying only that Canada adheres to the rule of law. We respect our partnerships and our agreements, including on extradition, with the United States. Former Canadian ambassador to China, David Mulroney, said it was not bad as an outcome for Trudeau, but its the second best outcome. We need to keep working on the Americans until they see it as within their own interest to do the right thing and press for the release of the two Canadians as an American objective, not simply a favour to Canada. The U.S. has a big stake in combating Chinese pressure against Americas own western allies. Three senior Canadian officials separately said that the conversation on China with Trump went well. One referred to the circumstances as very delicate. Trump welcomed Trudeau to the Oval Office, calling him a friend and saying they would have a positive day. In a photo opportunity, Trump took several questions, some on the prospects for ratification of the new NAFTA, which Trump calls by its American acronym USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement). Trump, who has criticized Chrystia Freelands frequent meetings on Capitol Hill during the NAFTA negotiations, said Trudeaus plan to speak to members of Congress about ratifying the new NAFTA is a terrific thing. I have to get the Democrats to approve it, so I like your positive thinking. But if and the if is really subject to the Democrats, lets see what happens but I really believe that Nancy Pelosi and the House will approve it, I think the senate will approve it rapidly. Its going to be very bipartisan. Trump did not rule out any further tariffs against Canada and Mexico, saying they have to do what they have to do. He said if there are any tremendous shipments of certain products into U.S. markets, he might revive them, appearing to refer to cheap foreign imports, such as steel that other countries, such as China, might try to divert into the U.S. via Canada. Trump said, there wont be, hopefully, transshipping. If theres transshipping, Ill call Justin and Im sure hell take care of it. And if he doesnt take Ill probably call him a second time. And if he doesnt, then well have to talk, right? Trudeau gestured with his palms down as if to tamp down any worries: Were going to be fine. Trudeau later acknowledged there are trade irritants and worries, including duties on Canadian softwood lumber exports and the possibility Trump will impose tariffs on Canadian uranium exports. Trudeau was vague about how he would deal with the possibility of any changes that Democrats might negotiate with the Administration to the NAFTA deal, stressing only that he does not want to see a good deal reopened. We are concerned that any reopening of NAFTA could lead to not just lengthy further negotiation we all were quite pleased were behind us, but also might lead to worse outcomes for Canadians and for Canada. The possibility remains that Parliament could be recalled in late July or early August to deal with the ratification. Legislation in Canada has merely passed its early stages, and has been sent for study by committee. Still the Liberals were feeling confident about how Trudeau handled the meetings with Trump. A fourth senior official told the Star that overall, it was a good day for Trudeau, as Parliament recesses, ahead of a fall election. If the ballot question was who do you trust to stand up to the U.S. president, Im good with that, he said. Conservative foreign affairs critic Erin OToole said he was glad the president will engage directly on the China crisis. After six months, it is clear Trudeau cannot get China engaged without the help of the U.S. But OToole sounded a note of caution. The President speculated about tariffs again, which is unsettling. The fact that the Liberals put C-100 (the new NAFTA bill) on hold shows they are uncertain on the status of the USMCA. Trudeau saying he had good meetings with leadership from both sides of the House of Representatives, including with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat majority leader. But he refused to be drawn into specifics about the Democrats demands for changes to environmental and labour enforcement or longer drug patent protections in the new trade deal. We had a very frank and positive conversation about the path forward to creating better opportunities for citizens, for workers on both sides of our border. I fully respect the conversations and discussions going on in their ratification process and offered to be helpful in responding or allaying certain fears. But Canada is not going to get involved in the ratification process that the American congress needs to go through, he said. Many of the questions thrown at Trump involved the downing by Iran of an unmanned U.S. drone, which Trump claimed was over international waters. The president suggested there would be retaliation, but he refused to specify what measures hed take, calling it a very bad mistake that was made by a very stupid person. Trudeau said we are very concerned about the escalation by Iran, pointing to Canadians in the anti-Daesh mission in Iraq. Replying to a question by the Toronto Star, Trump said he may invite the Toronto Raptors to visit the White House. They played phenomenal basketball. I watched a little bit of it. They were really terrific. Congratulations, by the way! So that was a great job by a great team, so well think about that. If theyd like to do it, well think about that. The two leaders appeared relaxed as they sat together. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, national security advisor John Bolton and Trumps press secretary Sarah Sanders looked on. That the meeting was held was a signal that the diplomatic chill has thawed. The two leaders met at noon in the Oval Office for their first one-on-one sit-down since last Junes summit notoriously imploded over then-stalled NAFTA talks and Trumps steel-and-aluminum tariffs. Last spring, Trumps tariffs, which were lifted last month, overshadowed the deal reached by Canada, U.S. and Mexico to modernize free trade rules and soured Trudeau and Trumps G7 summit talks. While Trump and Trudeau disagree strongly on major international issues such as climate change, a senior U.S. official said they can work well together on many others, amid rising tensions with Russia, China and Iran. We need Canada, said the American official, pointing to defence co-operation between the two countries on a range of issues. Trump adviser Kelly Anne Conway; Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin; a number of U.S. senators and members of Congress, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats leader in the House of Representatives; IMF head Christine Lagarde; industry representatives, and Mexicos ambassador in Washington attended a small reception the Canadian embassy hosted Wednesday evening that was closed to media. A Canadian official said 50 to 100 people attended the event which lasted a little more than an hour. With the new NAFTA deal now ratified by Mexico, Trump and Trudeau want to see it sealed and delivered in their own countries before it can take effect. So trade and global tensions will be on the menu when the two leaders extend their talks immediately after their face-to-face meeting in the Oval Office and are joined by their respective senior officials for a luncheon meeting at the White House cabinet room. Tonda MacCharles is an Ottawa-based reporter covering federal politics. Follow her on Twitter: @tondamacc https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/06/20/prime-minister-justin-trudeau-us-president-donald-trump-talk-china-trade-in-washington-thursday.html

0 notes

financingideas-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Back to School for 43-year-old JPMorgan Banker as Koreans Flee Finance

New Post has been published on https://financeqia.com/must-see/back-to-school-for-43-year-old-jpmorgan-banker-as-koreans-flee-finance/

Back to School for 43-year-old JPMorgan Banker as Koreans Flee Finance

It isnt easy quitting a lucrative job at JPMorgan Chase & Co. to become a middle-aged college freshman.

David Lim mulled the idea for seven years before he finally left the banks South Korea unit in February, heading back to school to start a new career as a physical therapist. For the 43-year-old father of one, the countrys shrinking financial industry and booming health-care sector made the decision to pursue his passion a little less daunting.

Because Korea is aging fast, people are growing more and more health conscious, said Lim, who left his role in banking sales at JPMorgan to join the health sciences program at the University of Otago in New Zealand. After graduation, he plans to eventually start his own business in Korea.

Lim is among a growing number of bankers turning to stronger segments of Koreas job market as the nations financial industry grapples with weak profitability, tepid economic growth and rising corporate defaults. Financial-sector employment shrank by 3.3 percent in the year through October 2015, versus gains of at least 1.9 percent over similar periods in Hong Kong, New York and the U.K.

For a related story on Koreas business culture, click here.

Employment in Koreas health-care and technology industries, meanwhile, has been rising amid strong demand from a graying society and President Park Geun-hyes campaign to create new growth engines in Asias fourth-largest economy. The shift is also visible in the nations $1.3 trillion stock market, with shares of health-care and technology companies leading gains among 11 industry groups this year.

I have a positive view on the IT and health-care sectors in the long-term, said Lee Kyoung Min, a Seoul-based analyst at Daishin Securities Co. They are probably two of the few industries that can actually grow in todays economy.

Korean health-care businesses are booming as the nation ages. The health and social work segment of gross domestic product expanded by 8.1 percent in the second quarter, versus 3.3 percent for the economy as a whole. On the employment side, health-care jobs climbed 1.3 percent in the 12 months through October 2015, according to the latest government data available. The proportion of Koreans aged 65 and above will more than triple by 2060 to 40 percent of the population, according to Statistics Korea.

Steady Growth

The nations changing demographics helped convince Lee Jung Ha, a 49-year-old former head of currency trading at Woori Investment & Securities (now part of NH Investment & Securities Co.), to leave his two-decade career in finance and start a nursing home near Seoul.

Lee Jung Ha

Source: Lee Jung Ha

Its an industry with steady growth, said Lee, who studied for months to pass a nursing-care test and completed a year of field training before opening his facility — Life Is Beautiful — in August. Sometimes I miss the trading room, but I am more excited with this new path.

Eunice Kim, a former trading analyst at ING Bank in Seoul, found her new career in the technology industry. After leaving ING in 2011, Kim worked at her familys electronics manufacturing business until it was purchased last year. She joined a U.K.-based technology startup in May to run its Korea operations, drawn to the companys flexible working hours and the potential for a big payday if the firm succeeds.

If things go well, there may be buying interest from U.S. tech companies, said Kim, 35, who declined to name her current employer because shes not authorized to speak to media. This will be a great opportunity for me both financially and professionally.

Koreas technology industry has been a standout in the nations job market, expanding 6.4 percent in the year through October 2015 thanks in part to President Parks efforts to build a creative economy fueled by high-tech entrepreneurs. The government announced plans this month to invest 15.3 trillion won ($13.9 billion) in areas such as software engineering, cloud computing, artificial intelligence and smart cars next year.

Mens Club

For shareholders of Koreas technology and health-care companies, 2016 has been a banner year. Companies in the two sectors have climbed 21 percent and 26 percent, respectively, based on a market-capitalization-weighted average of their returns. That compares with a 4.5 percent increase in the benchmark Kospi index and a 5 percent gain in financial stocks this year through Thursday. The Kospi added 0.2 percent on Friday.

Gaining exposure to high-flying industries doesnt come cheap. Koreas health-care stocks are valued at an average 102 times reported earnings, while tech shares command a multiple of 61 — almost six times higher than that of financial companies.

Still, there are good reasons for financial firms to trade at a discount. Per-share earnings for companies in the MSCI Korea Financials Index dropped by about 5 percent over the past year as record-low benchmark borrowing costs squeezed banks net-interest margins, while the delinquency rate on Korean bank loans rose to the highest in 13 months in July.

Bankers who left the business see benefits beyond just being part of a faster-growing industry. Lim was attracted to the long occupational lifespan of physical therapists, who can perform the job into their 60s and beyond. Lee, the former Woori trader, achieved a long-time dream of running his own business, while Kim was able to escape what she called a young mens club on the trading floors of big banks.

I have no regrets about leaving, Kim said. I enjoy my work and I feel fulfilled every day.

Read more: http://on.mash.to/2nHytnF

from Congress didn’t just make your data less safe it has put national security at risk

#Congress didn’t just make your data less safe it has put national security at risk

0 notes

pressography-blog1 · 8 years ago

Text

Russia Desires Immigrants the world Doesn’t

New Post has been published on https://pressography.org/russia-desires-immigrants-the-world-doesnt/

Russia Desires Immigrants the world Doesn’t

On a brutally bloodless February day, hundreds of laborers from Uzbekistan mill around in the snow and mud of a production web site 10 miles out of doors Moscow. Surrounding them are a series of unfinished 18-tale condominium blocks meant to function houses for Russian military officials.

Work has stopped due to the fact the men haven’t been paid in weeks. With nowhere to head, they stand round smoking and chatting on the considerable challenge locals name Samolyot, Russian for “the plane,” after a close-by monument to World Battle II pilots. At night, they hollow up in a nearby shantytown of corrugated steel cabins. There’s no shower, sink, or toilet—as an alternative there’s a row of blue portable outhouses, every half-filled with stalagmites of frozen excrement. within the morning, the men shiver over a fire cooking carrot gruel and melting ice from a nearby circulate to drink. Most are poorly dressed for the 10 diploma weather—one laborer emerges with not anything on his feet however wool socks and turn-flops My Update Studio.

Work web sites full of immigrant workers aren’t especially novel in advanced countries, and Russia is not any exception. Consistent with the UN, the state has eleven million foreigners, many without visas and from in large part Muslim, Principal Asian countries. but as Europe’s refugee crisis continues to gasoline a global resurgence of isolationism and xenophobia, in Russia—the arena’s 0.33-biggest vacation spot for global immigrants—things are being treated a touch otherwise.

A recent editorial in Nezavisimaya Gazeta was titled “Trump and Le Pen could be competition in Russia.” Underneath President Vladimir Putin, the newspaper argues, being anti-immigration is similar to being anti-establishment. “Domestic Television blasts Europe for multiculturalism, for receiving refugees from Mideast and Africa, for tolerance to migrants,” its editors wrote. however, in Russia, anti-immigrant stances are once in a while “characterized with the aid of the government as an unacceptable form of nationalism.”

The fact in Russia is that the immigrant economy may be very a great deal a part of its recuperation from an extended recession. And the authorities is aware of it.

“Russia is experiencing a large deficit of group of workers,” explains Andrey Molchan, director of the monetary coverage application on the Moscow Carnegie Center. “We badly need reasonably-priced hard work that cannot be discovered inside the USA.” Immigrants easy town streets and keep large residential buildings that dot the skyline. They play a key function in production, retail, and carrier sectors. inside the eating place industry, kitchen team of workers from nations like Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Georgia stays for years, sending Maximum of their money domestic.

“In case you take out the migrants, who comprise 15 percentage of the Russian body of workers, it is going to be not possible to replace them,” Movchan says, warning that the better wages had to attract Russian workers to such jobs might increase prices and harm the healing.

The pointy decline in oil prices—and western sanctions caused by Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine—become accompanied by means of a dropoff in immigration. The quantity of Uzbeks who crossed over fell by using 21 percent, even as Tajiks declined through 11 percent and Kyrgyz fell with the aid of five percent. however on the grounds that then, immigration has rebounded. Russia had 161,000 foreigners come into u. S . in 2015 and stay. In 2016, that variety elevated to 196,000, According to the Russian Overseas Alternate Academy and Gaidar Institute. Work-permit income in Moscow rose by using 10 percentage ultimate 12 months, too. With Maximum immigrants coming from former Soviet states like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, the migration has verified useful to all involved: Those two international locations top the list of world economies counting on remittances, In keeping with the sector Bank.

Restrictive immigration guidelines in Europe and America turn not most effective on fear of economic displacement, but the worry of terrorism. In Russia, there are comparable worries, but they don’t resonate as loudly. Putin stated last month that as many as five,000 humans from former Soviet participants joined the Islamic Country in Syria, and in 2016 security retailers arrested at the least two agencies of immigrants suspected of plotting attacks on Russian soil. But, the government in February introduced 2 hundred,000 formerly deported Tajiks could be allowed lower back into Russia.

Putin has been circumspect when it comes to addressing Islamic extremism. Russia is home to an expected nine.four million Muslims who make up a 6.five percentage of the populace. Islam has also been proclaimed one of the 4 religions indigenous to Russia.

Despite the fact that, Movchan says populist anti-immigrant sentiment is not unusual and police raids of worksites are a regular incidence. however economic imperatives continually keep greater sway. “The authorities will behavior deportations for a show and undertake populist legal guidelines,” he says. “However the scenario will live unchanged.”

Unchanged—however also unsightly. Immigrant people at sites like Samolyot describe each day struggles to survive amid low pay, mistreatment, and discrimination. “Moscow became my dream, a lovely town where there is a lot of money,” says Fakhreddin Yakubov, 31. “but now I simply want to leave.”

Sixty-12 months-vintage Murad Percolator is similarly despondent. A father of 5, he got here to Russia with the promise of work within the metropolis of Khimki. All went well for two months, but then he was fired. Having modified several jobs, he ended up at Samolyot, wherein his problems virtually began.

He become paid for some weeks before the cash dried up. He persevered operating—10 hours an afternoon, six days every week, for six months—however became ultimately paid much less than a third of what he became promised. He hoped to ship money to his circle of relatives inside the Samarkand location of Uzbekistan, but now he can’t scrape together enough to even get home.

One after some other, people at Samolyot repeat the equal tale. “They wanted to dupe us from the outset,” says 26-yr-vintage Ruslan Kalbergenov, who hails from the Uzbek vicinity of Karakalpakstan. Like many others, Kalbergenov says he got here to the website at the promise of legal residency, but The ones papers have not begun to materialize.

The employees are indignant, however while they arrive head to head with Alibek Gazimagomedov, who introduces himself as a shareholder inside the creation business enterprise that now owns the website, they grow silent. Gazimagomedov says that due to the fact that they don’t have any written contracts, he isn’t answerable for debt amassed via the preceding owner.

“Do I owe you anything?” he asks them in a loud voice. The workers murmur no.

Gazimagomedov says the corporation has completely paid people who have signed contracts, including that cutting-edge control has no responsibility for folks that had informal agreements with the prior proprietor. Bakhrom Khamroyev, a human rights activist from Uzbekistan who works with immigrant workers like The ones at Samolyot, says Vital Asians who lack Russian language skills or formal training are regularly victimized.

As tons as Russia needs immigrant hard work, there’s nevertheless pink tape. In 2010, Paintings allows have been brought in reaction to a surge in migration. Nowadays, a monthly permit requires a language check and expenses $70—greater than 4,000 rubles—that’s a significant amount of immigrant workers who make, on average, $400 a month. around 1.seventy three million permits have been issued in 2015, In line with the government.

now not everyone desires a allow, although. workers from Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Armenia were exempt on account that Those countries joined a customs union that Russia fashioned in 2010.

As deputy head of the Nation Duma committee on ethnic problems, Communist MP Valery Rashkin deals with immigration regulation. He says Russia is “flooded with poorly certified immigrant laborers” who are stealing jobs from Russian nationals. (Unemployment in Russia stands at just 5.6 percent.) A proponent of a strict visa regime for Relevant Asian countries, his stance is substantially greater strident than that of the Kremlin.

0 notes

patriotsnet · 4 years ago

Text

Do Republicans Or Democrats Give More To Charity

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/do-republicans-or-democrats-give-more-to-charity/

Do Republicans Or Democrats Give More To Charity

The Relationship Between Generosity And Political Affiliation And Gender

Who LIES More- Republicans or Democrats?

Most people tip their hair stylists, while only 27% tip their hotel housekeeper.

+1.63%

Tipping can be a social and cultural maelstrom. And social media doesnt always help.

Meanwhile, some restaurants have banned tipping while Uber is finally encouraging riders to open their wallets to drivers who go the extra mile.

See more:Meet the most generous tipper in America

Dont miss:How much to tip everyone

Also read: Is this the worst tipper in America?

Statistics On Us Generosity

Beto Orourke Other Democrats See The Downside Of Releasing Tax Returns

Also Check: How Many Presidents Have The Republicans Tried To Impeach

Charitable Giving By State: Are Republicans More Generous Than Democrats Or Just More Religious

Got a news tip? . Follow me on Twitter .

Volunteering In The Us

Religious faith is a central influence on giving. Religious people are much more likely than the non-religious to donate to charitable causesincluding secular causesand they give much more.

Also Check: What Did Republicans Gain From The Compromise Of 1877

How Political Ideology Influences Charitable Giving

Many issues seem to divide Democrats and Republicans, and new research has found one more: philanthropy.

But as red or blue counties become more politically competitive, charitable giving tends to fall.

Charitable Giving Does Not Match Government Aid

On the other hand, private philanthropy can do many things better than government aid, as in being responsive to a need and willing to fail without political fallout.

The studys authors make the case for a combination approach.

Theyre complementary means of redistribution of wealth rather than substitutions for each other, Dr. Christensen said. We cant put all of our eggs in one basket.

You May Like: Who Are The Republicans On The Ballot

Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals

Conservatives Are Satisfied With Their Family Lives

Do NFL Teams Give More to Republicans or Democrats?

You May Like: Who Are The 10 Republicans Who Voted For Impeachment

Poorer Conservatives More Generous Than Wealthy Liberals New Study

The Extreme Views Of The Donor Class

The main finding of the research is that the policy views of elite donors are more extreme than the views of partisan voters at large. They also vary widely by party.

Don’t Miss: Who Won More Democrats Or Republicans

Who Gives More To Charity Democrats Or Republicans

About Patt Morrison

Patt Morrison

The ongoing calls for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to issue additional years of his tax returns havent ceased.

Republican Donate More To Charity Than Democrats

8 comments:

Anonymoussaid…

Read Also: Who Controls The Senate Republicans Or Democrats

Giving Under Different Governments

In terms of volunteering, under a Labour government, Green supporters gave no more of their time than did Labour supporters. After 2015, Greens increased their volunteering time by 56%.

Do Your Political Views Make You Charitable

24 Jul, 2019

Professor Sarah Brown,Professor Karl Taylor

A new working paper asks whether people on the left or right give more to charity

Student volunteers at the University of Essex

In 2017, people in the UK gave over £10 billion to charity, and ONS figures suggest that unpaid labour in the form of volunteering is worth over £20 billion.

Also Check: Should Republicans Vote In Democratic Primary

Data Sources: Irs Forms 990

The Form 990 is a document that nonprofit organizations file with the IRS annually. We leverage finance and accountability data from it to form Encompass ratings. .

Impact & Results

This score estimates the actual impact a nonprofit has on the lives of those it serves, and determines whether it is making good use of donor resources to achieve that impact.

Impact & Results Score

Leftist Media And Academia Tell The Public The Opposite

12/29/10 – Stossel, Republicans donate much more than Democrats

Recommended Reading: What News Channel Do Republicans Watch

Percentage Of Us Donations Going Tovarious Causes

Nonprofits have grown faster than government and faster than the business sector over the last generation, even during boom periods.

Real Rise In Us Giving

After adjusting for inflation, charitable giving by Americans was close to seven times as big in 2016 as it was 62 years earlier.

Recommended Reading: What Cities Are Run By Republicans

What Elite Donors Want

Big-money donors, both Democrat and Republican, not only have more political influence than the average voter, they also have more extreme beliefs.

Do Democrats Hate Charity

The above-the-line deduction proposed by Republicans provides an incentive for all taxpayers, not just the wealthy, to give to charity.

This piece originally appeared at the Washington Examiner

______________________

Recommended Reading: How Many Republicans Are In The Us House

0 notes

patriotsnet · 4 years ago

Text

Is Economy Better Under Democrats Or Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/is-economy-better-under-democrats-or-republicans/

Is Economy Better Under Democrats Or Republicans

Democratic Presidents Are Better For The Stock Market And Economy Than Republicans One Study Shows

Contrary to popular belief, the stock market and economy have performed better under Democratic presidents than it has under Republican presidents, according to data going back to 1946.

Liberum, a UK-based investment bank, pointed to historical stock market returns and annual GDP growth to make the case that a Republican president’s drive to cut taxes and reduce government spending often leads to lower economic expansion and stock market returns than when a Democratic president is in office.

Since 1947, the S&P 500 has posted a total annual return of 10.8% under Democratic presidents, versus 5.6% under Republican presidents.

And if you exclude the Great Recession and COVID-19 pandemic, both of which happened under a Republican president, the data still points to stronger returns for Democratic presidents versus Republican presidents.

Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

It’s a widely held view that Republican presidents are better for the economy and stock market than Democratic presidents, because of their drive to cut taxes and reduce government spending. But the data says otherwise.

According to an August 21 note from Liberum, a UK-based investment bank, historical stock market returns and gross domestic product data points to a stronger economic expansion under Democratic presidents than under Republican presidents.

Read more: RBC says buy these 48 stocks spanning every industry that are poised to crush the market if Donald Trump wins reelection

Bush Was The Last President To Inherit A Budget Surplus And Started Running A Deficit Obama Cut It Though Trump Ran Bigger Ones As A Result Of His Tax Cuts And The Federal Response To The Pandemic

The federal deficit is the gap between tax revenue and federal spending. During periods of growth, the deficit tends to shrink because government spending on safety net benefits lessens.

Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion for fiscal year 2001. It was the last time the US had money left over. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a series of tax cuts, erased it and increased the deficit.

Obama ran large deficits to end the Great Recession, passing an $830 billion stimulus package in 2009. He later cut the deficit over half by the time he left office.

Similar to Obama and Bush, Trump has also relied on deficit spending. It widened by $1.5 trillion with the passage of the 2017 GOP tax cuts, contrary to the administration’s claims that the law would pay for itself.

The pandemic, however, prompted $3 trillion in federal spending many economists say was needed to address the public health and economic crises.

Does The Economy Do Better Under Democrats Or Republicans

In the rough and tumble of presidential campaigns — rougher this year than ever before — facts are sometimes lost in the debate. But one fact that voters should keep in mind — one that is incontrovertible — is that the U.S. economy performs better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones.

Conservatives have long claimed that they are better stewards of the economy. Most recently, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump promised to be “the greatest jobs president that God ever created.” They have repeated these claims so relentlessly and with such confidence that millions of Americans believe them to be true. The record shows otherwise.

Research from Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson finds that, since World War II, the economy has performed substantially better by virtually every measure when Democrats have been in the White House. GDP growth, job creation and industrial production have all been stronger during Democratic administrations than during Republican ones.

As the Ranking Member of the Joint Economic Committee, I asked my staff to review the Blinder and Watson findings. They were able to update and build on the economists’ analysis and found that on average since World War II, real GDP has grown about 1.6 times faster and private-sector jobs have grown nearly 2.5 times faster under Democrats than Republicans.

Let’s let the real debate over the economy begin.

Which Presidents Have Delivered The Best Stock Returns So Far Democrats Are Dominating

According to Siegel, author of the 1994 investment classic Stocks For The Long Run, Wall Streets obsession with politics is mostly misplaced: Bull markets and bear markets come and go, and its more to do with business cycles than presidents. In some ways the current environment has characteristics of the existential threat faced by George W. Bush post-2001 , the civil unrest that plagued the Johnson and Nixon administrations and Ronald Reagans trade war with Japan in the 1980s.

In an effort to more closely examine the relationship between the actions of a president and the direction of stocks, Forbes has analyzed their stock market performances, including dividends, dating back to Harry Truman. Using data from the National Bureau of Economic Research , weve also noted for each president the number of expansions and recessions that began during their tenures. In some cases like the presidency of Bill Clinton, who was in office during one of the most impressive periods of economic prosperity in history, you won’t see an expansion listed. Thats because credit is awarded to the president who was in office during its inception, which in this case was George H.W. Bush. We also included the ratio of gross federal debt to GDP for the final year of each presidency.

Presidential portraits courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration

Donating = Changing Economics And Changing The World

Evonomics is free, its a labor of love, and it’s an expense. We spend hundreds of hours and lots of dollars each month creating, curating, and promoting content that drives the next evolution of economics. If you’re like us if you think theres a key leverage point here for making the world a better place please consider donating. Well use your donation to deliver even more game-changing content, and to spread the word about that content to influential thinkers far and wide.

MONTHLY DONATION

Whos Better For The Economy: Democrats Or Republicans

Who does a better job at managing the American economy: Democrats or Republicans?

Whose policies help the country and whose policies hurt it? Who should get credit when things are going well and who should take the blame when the economy slips?

But before we use the EPI to answer the question, we have to figure out how to measure the problem. It is impossible to break down every piece of legislation to see how it affected the performance of the overall economy. We can examine a few key policies, but that doesnt really answer whether one political party does a better job altogether; it only sheds light on that particular piece of legislationone small piece of a very big puzzle.

So how do we measure the effectiveness of one partys politics?

Do Dems Run The Economy Better Nope

Its a Democratic campaign consultants dream: a study from two respected academic economists concluding that, since the late 1940s, the economy has consistently performed better under Democratic presidents than under Republican ones. The gap is huge. From 1949 to 2013 a period when the White House was roughly split between parties the economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.33 percent, but growth under Democratic presidents averaged 4.35 percent and under Republicans, 2.54 percent. Jobs, stocks and living standards all advanced faster under Democrats.

Not surprisingly, one of the reports authors is a well-known Democratic economist, Alan Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve now at Princeton University; the other author, Mark Watson, also at Princeton, is a highly regarded scholar of economic statistics who describes himself as nonpartisan. More interesting, Blinder and Watson dont credit the Democratic advantage to superior policies.

Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim, they write. Most economists, they note, doubt presidents can control the economy.

So if presidents didnt do it, who or what did? Blinder and Watson march through economic studies. Their conclusion: About half of the Democrats advantage reflected good luck favorable outside events or trends. Three dominate.

Conservatives Love To Tout Their Economic Bona Fides But The Data Reveal A Far Different Story

As the 2016 election cycle heats up, the key question at stake for most Americans is economic growth and jobs. The debate, then, will center around what to do with the fragile recovery that overwhelmingly benefits the rich; the stagnation of middle class incomes; and unemployment — which, particularly for young people of color, remains dispiritingly high.

The right likes to argue that these conditions mark a clear failure of progressive policies, and in particular of the Obama administration. In the process, they reject policies that have, however imperfect, unequivocally strengthened the economy over the past seven years, such as the stimulus packages that came in response to the economic crisis.

Meanwhile, while conservatives often claim that their policies are good for the middle class, systematic studies by economists, political scientists and sociologists suggest these claims are overblown.

Economic Growth

At the heart of the question is economic growth: Which party is better at delivering it?

While economic growth alone is not sufficient for middle class and working class income growth, it is certainly necessary. The most systematic investigation of how parties affect economic growth was performed by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. Their results are unequivocal:

Inequality

The chart below suggests this effect is driven by both market conditioning and redistribution .

Unemployment

Taxes

Race

So Democrats Are Worse

We look at the differences in economic scores between Democrats and Republicans and judge it to be a draw. The Democrats score may reflect that they had to manage the economy under difficult circumstances, including the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Then again, Republicans enjoyed a booming economy during the Roaring Twenties and the late 90s. If we could control for those shocks, we might find the two parties positions switched. Moreover, our approach cannot establish causality . All we can view is the correlation .However, we could use a regression analysis to look for time connections between one party coming to power and the subsequent performance of the economy. This approach would actually allow us to look for empirical causality. We wanted to isolate economic policies from exogenous shocks, so that we were truly comparing apples to apples. Democrats would not be docked for the Great Depression and WWII, while the Republicans would not get a boost from globalization, etc.

To do this, we subtracted the smoothed trend from the EPI scores. Then, we conducted a regression of the EPI deviation from its trend against the IPP.

This way, there could be no disputing whether the economy was up or down because of factors beyond the respective partys control.

Our regression analysis found no statistically significant causality. Which is fine and happens often.

Diversify Into Real Estate

Stock market performance has been strong over time. The same can be said for real estate. Given interest rates have come way down, the value of rental income and cash flow have gone way up. Therefore, Im personally buying multifamily properties and rental properties for capital appreciation and income. Stocks also tend to be more volatile than real estate.

One of the best ways to invest in real estate is through real estate crowdfunding. My favorite two real estate crowdfunding platforms are:

Fundrise: A way for accredited and non-accredited investors to diversify into real estate through private eREITs. Fundrise has been around since 2012 and has consistently generated steady returns, no matter what the stock market is doing.

CrowdStreet: A way for accredited investors to invest in individual real estate opportunities mostly in 18-hour cities. 18-hour cities are secondary cities with lower valuations, higher rental yields. They also have potentially higher growth due to job growth and demographic trends.

Ive personally invested $810,000 in real estate crowdfunding since 2016 to diversify my investments. Its nice to earn income 100% passively as I spend more time taking care of my children.

Filed Under: Investments

I spent 13 years working at Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse. In 1999, I earned my BA from William & Mary and in 2006, I received my MBA from UC Berkeley.

Current recommendations:

The Index Of Political Power

It stands to reason that the more policy-making positions one party holds, the more policies that party will implement. If one party controls a majority of Congress, for example, then more of that partys policies will likely get passed than the other partys. Therefore, we could measure how many positions each party held, and then use that as a proxy to assume that more of that partys ideas were being enacted.

Obviously, such a measure should include the legislative bodies of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Since the president signs or vetoes legislation into law, that position should be included, too. Even though the Supreme Court can overturn a law, we should not include the judicial body. Many of its decisions are related to social policies rather than economic ones; its impact on the economy, as far as this Index is concerned, is negligible.

However, there is another area outside of legislative control that we should include in this proxy measure: the monetary policy. As we explained earlier, the countrys monetary stance is a critical component of the economys performance. But Congress does not control monetary policythe Federal Reserve does. By tradition, the Fed follows the decisions of its chairman. In effect, the nations monetary policy is determined by one individual. Logically, then, we should include the political party of this position, too.

our Index of Political Power

Recessions And The White House

The statement by Occupy Democrats runs from the Ronald Reagan presidency, which began in January 1981, to the present.

But by using the phrase “has overseen” in connection with a recession, the statement is less than precise as to whether it refers to a recession that began during a president’s term or whether he has had to deal with a recession in his time in office.

Likewise, applying the phrase “has overseen” to a strong recovery by the Democrats leaves it unclear as to whether the statement means a president started the recovery or inherited an ongoing recovery, as President Donald Trump did from President Barack Obama.

The interpretation of the phrase “has overseen” complicates the process of fact-checking it. Obama inherited a recession from Bush II that began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, according to NBER, the longest economic downturn since World War II.

Under that Reagan-to-Trump timeline, the Republican presidencies had four recessions start in their terms: one each under Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and two under George W. Bush. By contrast, Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had zero.

With the economic downturn created by the coronavirus pandemic, a recession is likely to be declared after the latest GDP data is released, sometime in July. We may be in one now, but it has not been deemed official.

Wages Grew Steadily Under Bush And Slowed Under Obama They Started Picking Up Again Under Trump But The Pandemic’s Impact Skewed This Year’s Data

Wage growth is usually a good indicator of how much the economy is benefiting average workers. But the chart above illustrates the shortfalls of relying too much on a single metric given the devastation that the pandemic has caused.

Wage gains were steady for most of the Bush administration, ranging between 2% and 4% each year. Then it took a hit during the Great Recession, and wage growth was anemic for much of the Obama presidency.

The initial years of the Trump presidency coincided with a rise in wages as the economy expanded and employers competed to hire workers. They grew above 3% starting in 2018.

Millions of low-wage workers were sidelined in the early months of the pandemic, while many higher-wage white collar workers were able to continue working remotely.

It artificially dragged up the average wage for those still able to work, according to an analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. It’s expected to drop as more hourly workers regain their jobs.

Want A Better Economy Elect A Democratic President

I enjoyed David Leonhardts opinion piece in the New YorkTimes today including graphic evidence that the econmomy performed better under Democratic presidents for the last century.

A president has only limited control over the economy. And yet there has been a stark pattern in the United States for nearly a century. The economy has grown significantly faster under Democratic presidents than Republican ones.

Its true about almost any major indicator: gross domestic product, employment, incomes, productivity, even stock prices. Its true if you examine only the precise period when a president is in office, or instead assume that a presidents policies affect the economy only after a lag and dont start his economic clock until months after he takes office. The gap holds almost regardless of how you define success, two economics professors at Princeton, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, write. They describe it as startlingly large.

Accompanying graphics tell the story, with a couple shown here.

My dad, a yellow-dog Democrat stockbroker in southern Louisiana, preached this to me until his dying day. His evidence was only anecdotal, of course, but very tangible.

The Historical Precedent For Job Gains Is Mixed

The economy didn’t substantially add jobs early on in Bush’s presidency. But it started picking up until the 2008 financial crisis.

The Obama administration moved to stem those job losses early on in his term, and the economy stabilized in 2010. With the recovery underway, employers added jobs, coming out to an average of 224,000 gains per month in Obama’s last three years.

Job growth during the Trump presidency had mostly matched its pace under Obama before 2020. In the first three years up to February, the economy added 182,000 jobs monthly on average.

But pandemic-related job losses left a crater in the economy. Many experts say it will take several years for the labor market to recover from the blow.

Everyone Does Better When The Presidents A Democrat

The numbers dont lie. The question is why every Democrat isnt talking about this all the time.

Photo Illustration by Lyne Lucien/The Daily Beast/Getty

Our two political parties have certain identities that are seared into our collective public brain. Democrats: the party of workers, of civil rights, of compassion and fairness, and of higher taxes and more regulation. Republicans: party of the rich, big business , the free market, and lower taxes and less regulation.

And because the GOP is the party of big business, it is universally assumed that Republicans are better at handling the economy. Polls typically find that people trust Democrats more on all the things that government does, which stands to reason, but trust Republicans more on handling the economy. Just last week I saw a poll in which respondents rated Biden as better equipped than Trump to handle race relations, the virus response, and two or three other things; but on the economy, Trump bested Biden 51-46.

Its hard wired, and its wrong. Dead wrong.

Simon Rosenberg heads , a liberal think tank and advocacy organization. He has spent years advising Democrats, presidents included, on how to talk about economic matters. Not long ago, he put together a little PowerPoint deck. It is fascinating. You need to know about it. The entire country needs to know about it.

The deck consists of about 15 slides, but Ill walk you through just six so you get the idea. Lets start with job creation under each president:

Financial Planning Under President Joe Biden

With Joe Biden as president, financial planning comes full circle. I retired under President Obama and I plan to retire again under Joe Biden.

Because the Democrats have control of both houses and the presidency, more taxes will be passed. There will also be more spending to help all citizens. As a result, I plan to take things down a notch once I get vaccinated or once taxes go up, whichever comes first.

Im tired of the hustle during the pandemic. Instead, I want to spend my money and live it up more. I think everybody is.

Luckily for investors, stocks and real estate have performed well during the pandemic. Therefore, we have an even larger cushion to live our lives as freely as possible.

Biden Versus Trump Some Speculate That The Future Of The Republic Hinges On The Outcome Of The Next Election But For Smart Investors It Doesn’t Really Matter Who Wins

Conventional wisdom says that those liberal Dems are generally bad for the economy and the stock market because of their big government tendencies, while fiscally conservative Republicans are good. This widely accepted belief is actually fake news if you look at data going back to the end of World War II.

Stock markets do perform better under Democrats than under Republicans. Thats a well-known fact, but it does not imply cause and effect, says Jeremy Siegel, the Russell E. Palmer Professor of Finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. From 1952 through June 2020, annualized real stock market returns under Democrats have been 10.6% compared with 4.8% for Republicans.

With the 2020 election less than four months away, some investors are fretting about the pros and cons of a Trump vs. Biden presidency. A Democratic sweep would almost certainly mean a rollback of Trumps massive corporate tax cut , but additional economic stimulus and stability on the China trade front would be a big positive.

Clinton: Economy Better Under Democrats

Hillary Clinton says the U.S. economy does better with a Democrat in the White House, citing research by two Princeton economists. But the authors of that report do not credit Democratic fiscal policies for the economic growth.

In fact, the authors say our empirical analysis does not attribute any of the partisan growth gap to fiscal or monetary policy.

Clinton has made the claim numeroustimes in recent weeks usually in the context of her economic plan, as she did during the first Democratic debate.

Clinton, Oct. 13: I have a five-point economic plan, because this inequality challenge we face, we have faced it at other points. Its absolutely right. It hasnt been this bad since the 1920s. But if you look at the Republicans versus the Democrats when it comes to economic policy, there is no comparison. The economy does better when you have a Democrat in the White House and thats why we need to have a Democrat in the White House in January 2017.

Clinton expounded on that talking point the following day during a speech in Las Vegas.

When we asked for backup, the Clinton campaign pointed us to academic research by two Princeton economists titled, Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration. The authors, Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson, concluded after researching an array of economic statistics that the economy has performed much better when a Democrat is president than when a Republican is.

Why Does The Us Economy Perform Better Under Democrats Than Republicans

Since Carter, no Democratic President has had a recession begin on their watch. At the same time, no Republican President including the single term Presidents has gotten through their time in the White House without a recession.

Despite the widely held belief that Republicans are better at managing the economy than Democrats, the history of the United States economy tells a different story. In nearly every metric one might use to measure performance, Democratic presidents have presided over greater economic growth.

Strikingly, this is not even by a slight margin. According to a paper published in 2013 by Princeton economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, the performance gap is startlingly large so much so that it strains credulity, given how little influence over the economy most economists assign to the President of the United States.

The pair suggests that this is not due to time sensitive matters or partisan fiscal or monetary policy. Instead, they attribute this gap in large part to benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, and more optimistic consumer expectations.

In short, they chalk it up to one part luck, another part self-fulfilling prophecy whereby consumers anticipate the economy will flourish under a Democratic leader and then drive the economy upward and a third part thats, well, a mystery.

Still, they say that it is highly unlikely that the D-R growth gap was just luck.

0 notes

trendingnewsb · 7 years ago

Text

Ta-Nehisi Coates v Cornel West: black academics and activists give their verdict

Coates hit back on Twitter, listing the articles he has written criticising US foreign policy, before quitting the social media site and deleting his account of 1.25 million followers.

So did this row between two of the best-known African American thinkers set back, or advance the struggle for black equality? We asked black academics and activists for their verdict.

Melvin Rogers: Criticisms of our allies are valid, but must be properly pitched

Melvin Rogers is associate professor of political science at Brown University

Patrisse Cullors: The spotlight is on two men whose debates are not definitive of our communities

Revolutionary Unity

gained only thru struggle

long sought for

must be fought for

`Revolutionary Unity

And finally, when we are calling for black political debate, I ask, is it fundamentally changing the material conditions for black people? Here, I dont see it; and black life is at stake.

Patrisse Cullors is an African American advocate for criminal justice reform and co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement

Carol Anderson: The real radical is the man who hits power in high places

In the midst of this maelstrom

Carol Anderson is Charles Howard Candler professor and chair, African American studies, at Emory University

Shailja Patel: An unrealistic and ahistorical code has been invoked to silence debate

Imperial privilege is reducing a vital assessment of Barack Obamas devastating harm to black and brown peoples outside the US to a personal beef between two African American men.

Shailja Patel is a Kenyan writer currently based in Johannesburg. She is the author of Migritude