It’s election time, so I thought it might be a good idea for everyone to get some data on one of the most pressing problems Americans are facing, and that’s inflation. People keep saying that the rate of inflation is coming down, but the prices are still way higher than they used to be. So, who did a better job of controlling inflation? Trump, during his 4 years, or Kamala, during her 4 years?

This article is from the Wall Street Journal:

Kamala Harris couldn’t explain during her interview with Fox News’s Bret Baier this week why she’d be better on the economy and inflation than Donald Trump. The Vice President instead invoked the expert wisdom of progressive economists. That wisdom is worth a closer look.

[…]A nearby chart shows the inflation trend during the Trump and Biden presidencies. Inflation averaged 2.1% annually between 2017 and 2019, compared to 5.1% under Mr. Biden. (Inflation declined to 1.2% in 2020 amid the Covid lockdowns.) Deficits totalled $2.4 trillion during Mr. Trump’s first three years compared to $5.8 trillion during Mr. Biden’s.

[…]In March 2021, Democrats stoked consumption… with their $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act…

The bill was largely composed of transfer payments, including $1,400 checks per person, $3,600 per child tax credits, an extra $300 a week in unemployment benefits, a 15% increase in food stamps, rental assistance and more. Such handouts discouraged unemployed Americans from returning to work since they could earn as much not working.

President Biden further loosened the spending spigot with executive actions, sweetening food stamps and waiving monthly student loan payments. A Congressional Budget Office report this week noted that the 2021 food-stamp boost likely reduced the labor supply since people received fewer benefits the more income they earned.

This unprecedented helicopter drop of money, aided by the Federal Reserve, kicked off the highest inflation in 40 years.

And the article concludes:

Ms. Harris has adopted the Biden spending agenda and more. Mr. Trump is no fiscal conservative, but on deficits and inflation his first-term record is far superior to the four years of Biden-Harris.

Remember, Kamala was asked what she would do differently than Biden, and she said that she wouldn’t do anything different than Biden. Now, some people might say that’s because she doesn’t know enough about policy to know how to answer that question, but let’s just take her at her word, and expect 4 more years of Biden’s record on inflation.

The nice thing about a Kamala victory is that the people who will have to pay the most are the people who spend a lot of money now. Especially people who just don’t have the willpower to stop spending money on things they don’t need. We have a $36 trillion debt. Interest on the debt will start to crowd out discretionary spending like spending on welfare programs. So, it’s going to be harder for people who depend on collecting welfare to make ends meet. I’m looking forward to seeing people with high burn rates have to cut their spending, because of the consequences of their votes.

In this post, I have two articles that may surprise you. Democrats seem to have an obsession with demanding that everyone agree that they don’t steal elections. Their words say that they want free and fair elections, where only citizens vote, and every vote is counted. That’s a wonderful goal. But do their words match their actions? Let’s take a look at some news stories, then you can decide.

Here’s the first article from the Washington Times:

The Biden administration sued Virginia on Friday over the state’s effort to remove noncitizens from its voting lists, arguing the move violated a federal law that bars changes to the rolls so close to an election.

Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin in August ordered state officials to conduct “daily updates” to remove ineligible voters, including felons and those who are “unable to verify that they are citizens.”

The Justice Department said that amounts to a formalized cleansing of the voter rolls, which it said violates a 1993 law on voter registration.

[…]Mr. Youngkin, in a statement, blasted the case.

“With less than 30 days until the election, the Biden-Harris Department of Justice is filing an unprecedented lawsuit against me and the Commonwealth of Virginia, for appropriately enforcing a 2006 law signed by Democrat Tim Kaine that requires Virginia to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls,” he said.

He said the noncitizens Virginia cleaned from its rolls had previously declared “themselves a non-citizen” and then registered to vote.

And it’s not just Virginia, it’s Alabama, too:

The federal lawsuit against Virginia follows another one the Justice Department filed against Alabama, which flagged 3,251 names it moved to its inactive voter list on Aug. 13 — 84 days before the election.

Alabama used state records where someone indicated on an unemployment form or an application for a driver’s license or identity card that they weren’t a citizen.

Let’s see another story and make sure that I’m understanding their actions correctly.

Here’s an article from Daily Signal:

After requesting citizenship status information about registered voters in Florida, and not receiving it from federal agencies as required by law, Florida sued.

In September, Florida requested information from the Department of Homeland Security and its subagencies about citizenship status of a subset of registered voters it identified and its request was denied.

One month later, a coalition of attorneys general, including Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, called on DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to provide the requested information, after multiple states, including Texas and Florida, also asked for similar information. They made the requests as multiple states also removed thousands of noncitizens from their voter rolls.

On Oct. 16, Moody sued Mayorkas and DHS in U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida Pensacola Division “for refusing to verify immigration records for the State of Florida to ensure voter-roll integrity.”

Under the Biden-Harris administration, millions of illegal border crossers “have flooded into the country,” Moody said. “Florida has an interest in ensuring that only American citizens are registered to vote. Recently, the state identified registered voters who may not be U.S. citizens, and DHS refuses to provide information necessary to determine their immigration status.” Moody sued “to ensure noncitizens are not on the voter rolls.”

“Voting is a right granted to American citizens—not illegal immigrants or other noncitizens,” she said.

The 16-page lawsuit cites federal and state law related to maintaining accurate voter registration records, federal government agencies’ legal requirement to ensure only citizens are voting in elections, among other provisions. “Because the federal government is refusing to comply with these obligations and frustrating Florida’s ability to maintain the integrity of its elections, Florida files this suit,” the lawsuit states.

So what do we learn from this?

Well, I think it’s important for everyone who doesn’t want communism to get out there and vote in November. Why? Because the best way to prevent one party from cheating in an election is to make sure that the election is not close. If it’s not close, then they can’t cheat. So, make sure that you have a plan to vote, and make sure that you’re convincing the people around you to vote against communism, too. If it’s not close, then they can’t cheat.

I’ve noticed that young women are quite frightened of men, because they are taught that men are dangerous. I’m concerned that these beliefs will deter women from choosing men wisely, and marrying them. One way to counter these fears about “domestic violence” is to take a look at the studies, and see who is really doing the violence. Is it always men, or is there a balance?

The study was published in the Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma.

Here’s the abstract:

Recent debates surrounding intimate partner violence (IPV) have focused on its gender symmetry and gender-oriented nature. These debates center on findings from various data sources, like victimization or self-reported surveys and police-based reports. Data by Statistics Canada, from 1999 to 2014, has shown that the prevalence of IPV is similar for male and female victims, except for sexual assaults. However, there has been a paucity of studies on the severity and risk factors of IPV against men by female partners. Thus, this paper examines the severity of and risk factors for physical IPV against heterosexual men in Canada using the General Social Survey (Victimization) data of 2014. This study revealed that there is a symmetry in the experiences of physical violence between male and female victims. This study also revealed that male victims experience more severe violence than female victims. Using binary logistic regression analysis, years of dwelling together, the victim’s age, childhood victimization, and marijuana use were found to predict physical IPV against heterosexual men. This paper concludes with suggestions about how these predicting factors can be used to identify male victims and the need for a more inclusive approach toward addressing IPV, which should include male victims.

The key points for us:

• scholars typically ignore violence against men committed by women: “However, there has been a paucity of studies on the severity and risk factors of IPV against men by female partners.”
• men and women commit domestic violence at roughly equal rates: “This study revealed that there is a symmetry in the experiences of physical violence between male and female victims.”
• Men are the victims of more severe violence than women: “This study also revealed that male victims experience more severe violence than female victims.”

This confirms data from a blog post I wrote a long time ago (2011) about this issue.

I found that:

Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.

That’s the UK.

And:

An estimated 7% of women and 6% of men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive new report on family violence.

That’s Canada.

It’s interesting to note that the police and the courts do not acknowledge that women commit domestic violence. Whenever there is a report of domestic violence, the man is ALWAYS assumed to be the attacker, and ALWAYS arrested and removed from his home. That is the way that domestic violence works, according to the famous “Duluth model”. The Duluth model actually discourages men from getting into relationships that lead to marriage. Men don’t want to be attacked by women, and then treated as the aggressors by police.

Another factor also deters men from relationships and marriage: courts that are biased against men. When there is domestic violence, women are treated far more leniently than men. I blogged about a study about this recently, and found:

The estimated gender disparities are strikingly large, conditional on observables. Most notably, treatment as male is associated with a 63% average increase in sentence length, with substantial unexplained gaps throughout the sentence distribution.

I see stories all the time where women are violent, and get no jail time. Here is one story from January 2024 and here is another from March 2024.

Men do look at these studies, and they decide on their life goals accordingly. Don’t blame men for aligning their goals and decisions with the way that the world really is. If women want men to engage the way that men used to, they should stop being so defensive and fix the problems that are deterring men from relationships.