|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Who is going to pay the 1.3 Trillion
Who
When
Lifetime tax cuts for already wealthy people  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | First off, no, you don't just assume rapid growth after a recession. Not without policies. |
but you do assume that because that is exactly how a Capitalist economy works. There is a natural elastic positive bounce that should correspond with the depth of the decline. In hundreds, if not thousands of Macro Econ 101 classes around the country each year, the professor will demonstrate this in the front of the class with a simple rubber band or quick chalk diagram. "Policies" in reference to ones that regulate or restrict in any way will only slow that positive bounce. The most effective approach at the conclusion of a recession is to simply get out of the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
But underemployment is better than unemployment is it not?
| Quote: | Despite the fact that the majority of Americans say they're living paycheck to paycheck, the average person spends $483 per month on non-essential expenses, Charles Schwab found.
It's easy to let your spending get out of hand, especially if you're not tracking your expenses to see where your money goes. It may feel as if you're stretching every dollar and can't afford to set any money aside in your retirement fund or savings account, but you're probably spending more than you think on things you don't need. |
Here’s another excerpt from that second article and I’ve long thought that is a huge problem in my generation and is a huge contributor to the paycheck to paycheck issue.
Wage growth needs to improve. I totally agree. How do you think we can do that and what democratic candidates do you see being able implement policies that will get it done? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ContagiousInspiration wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | ContagiousInspiration wrote: | Trump's economy is Trumpery
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trumpery
Definition of trumpery
1a : worthless nonsense
b : trivial or useless articles : JUNK
1.3 TRILLION DOLLARS spent with nowhere near enough coming in next year to pay for it
He has intentionally set the US up to fail and fail hard |
So historic unemployment rates(minorities included) are worthless? The median household income increasing is meaningless?
Yes, this is exactly what fair reasonable discussion looks like. |
Trump's team has been caught lying every minute of the day.
Where is 1.3 Trillion gonna come from? He's got to pay that back you know?
Farms
Trucking
Solar Energies
All failing and Farmers are losing their farms at the highest rates ever ..BUT that was the goal of the tariffs. Hurt America. You'll see
https://time.com/5736789/small-american-farmers-debt-crisis-extinction/
They're Trying to Wipe Us Off the Map.' Small American Farmers Are Nearing Extinction
BTW rational conversation with someone who trusts Trump's numbers game is not possible |
They aren’t Trumps numbers, they are THE numbers. He doesn’t set the S&P price or do employment studies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | First off, no, you don't just assume rapid growth after a recession. Not without policies. |
but you do assume that because that is exactly how a Capitalist economy works. There is a natural elastic positive bounce that should correspond with the depth of the decline. In hundreds, if not thousands of Macro Econ 101 classes around the country each year, the professor will demonstrate this in the front of the class with a simple rubber band or quick chalk diagram. "Policies" in reference to ones that regulate or restrict in any way will only slow that positive bounce. The most effective approach at the conclusion of a recession is to simply get out of the way. |
So the bounce would have been higher if they let the banks and the auto industry fail? And let’s deal with the fact that every unified GOP government, implementing tax cuts, deregulation, and all manner of other getting out of the way, crashes the economy. Every. Single. One.
This is the root problem. These old saws of fiscal responsibility, and economic growth, they don’t actually do what they claim. Instead they concentrate wealth (hint, that’s their real purpose), and even large swaths of people who are getting killed by them keep going along. Because of the other messaging that’s more personal. That’s what I keep trying to get across. The GOP is not a party of economics for the masses. Which is why its message is tailored to “better this than them”, them being a ling line of race, gender, origin, sexuality, religious, and ideological others. Better a Russian than a Democrat. Actual sign. And when installing completely unqualified judges (I would hope you grant that putting people who haven’t even tried cases in charge of courts is probably a fairly easily avoided mistake) who make noises about gutting the constitutional rights of “them” becomes the good part that you put up with by he rest for, then there is a huge problem going on, and it isn’t liberals. The killer is inside the house.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BigGameHames wrote: | | But underemployment is better than unemployment is it not? |
I would suggest compare the numbers to Obama's....I assume Trump's ratio of full time employment or near full time employment is significantly better than the last administrations. The national media would never cover the breakdown of the modest job growth during the Obama years, but over 90% of "jobs added" most months under Obama were Part Time, Temporary, or Seasonal employment. That is why there was nearly no wage growth or inflation.
It is a way to massage the numbers that every administration attempts to do, but the media only reports it when it fits their narrative. For example....A person gets a job at a night club for 16 hours on the weekend.....they deliver newspapers 3 days a week for 10-12 hours, and the work at a pop up Christmas shop for 6 hours on Sunday.....well then the economy just created 3 jobs.....and it allows you to cycle people through to make it appear they have not been unemployed for very long. It is all in the details of the reports to some degree, but 99.9% of us only care about the top line....those 3 wonderful new jobs that were created...nobody talks about when they are combined will not even cover the rent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BigGameHames wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: |
There are people who genuinely don’t care how he acts or behaves. They care about policy and the fact that they perceive he is facilitating a thriving economy. The best way to debate those people is argue that the economy will continue to do well without Trump more than lamenting the fact that Trump is a (bleep) person. I know people who didn’t vote for him in 2016 who will vote for him in 2020 because of the economy and because they don’t see a viable candidate making it out of the Democratic Party. |
What specifically about the economy is thriving under Trump that wasn't under Socialist President Obama? By most measures (which Trump used to think were garbage measurements) the economy either continued on the positive path that Obama set it on or hasn't even kept up with the rate of improvement as seen under Obama.
And of course the previous Republican president facilitated a Great Recession.
So, we know in reality it's not about the economy.
Unemployment
GDP Growth
Job Growth
Wage Growth
Median Household Income
Stock Market
National Deficit
Trade Deficit |
Recessions are cyclical, I don’t think it’s fair to put that on Bush although I was too young to follow politics back then. I think the fact we haven’t had one yet in Trumps presidency is a good thing as we are a few years overdue for one. Unemployment is at all time lows. Yes it’s continued the trend that began during Obama’s tenure but it’s tough to not give Trump any credit. He’s maintained the trend while surpassing those lows. It’s harder to continue to decrease unemployment the lower it goes yet he’s managed to do so. Median household income is up. The stock market is doing great. These are signs of a good economy. As I touched on earlier, Obama’s tenure was immediately after a recession which is a time you’d expect rapid growth. At the point we are at now, rapid growth wouldn’t generally be expected as we are approaching a recession not recovering from one. |
First off, no, you don't just assume rapid growth after a recession. Not without policies. And thus far, growth has not been near what Trump promised.
| Quote: | Over the 11 quarters since he was elected, U.S. real GDP has averaged 2.6% per year, not the 4%, 5% or even 6% that Trump vowed. By way of comparison, GDP averaged 2.4% over the final 16 quarters of Barack Obama’s presidency. All of the extra growth (and more) since 2017 was provided by a fiscal boost from tax cuts and spending increases as Republican lawmakers turned from austerity budgets under Obama to stimulus under Trump.
|
Trump's trade war has hurt America, not made us stronger and he is quite literally providing welfare to farmers because of it. The stock market is not doing better under Trump, than under Obama and it's way more volatile due to his trade war and public antics.
He hasn't made healthcare affordable. He hasn't improved our infrastructure. He's putting us more in debt than ever before.
So again, look deeper than your "it's the economy" claims. It's something else that Trump supporters like. |
Sure, but it’s far easier to create rapid growth through policy directly after a recession than when we are approaching one which is my point. Trump promised things he knew he couldn’t deliver, hyperbole is his shtick.
The trade war has negatively impacted many farmers, that’s for sure. But I think it could have a positive long term impact on the country. The S&P hit an all time high today. Sure it’s a bit more volatile but it’s doing very well.
Some people like Trump for other reasons but to deny there are any who support him because of the economy is ignorant. |
The more accurate point is that the people who look at the stock market or unemployment figures that go no deeper than a single percentage as indicators of the economy are ignorant. It's what this administration sells to the fools who support them because while very few of them have experienced real benefits from any policy decision, it makes them feel like they are winning too.
But rather than post articles to support that, I would suggest that you take a look at the percentage of Americans who are invested in the stock market and to what degree. Then take a look at the number of layoffs that have occurred in those companies that trade on the exchanges. Perhaps even look at how much of that huge tax savings they were gifted went into stock buybacks vs. going into improving the lives of employees.
After that, take a look at the unemployment numbers by salary vs cost of living and maybe take a look at the number of people who hold multiple jobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | First off, no, you don't just assume rapid growth after a recession. Not without policies. |
but you do assume that because that is exactly how a Capitalist economy works. There is a natural elastic positive bounce that should correspond with the depth of the decline. In hundreds, if not thousands of Macro Econ 101 classes around the country each year, the professor will demonstrate this in the front of the class with a simple rubber band or quick chalk diagram. "Policies" in reference to ones that regulate or restrict in any way will only slow that positive bounce. The most effective approach at the conclusion of a recession is to simply get out of the way. |
So the bounce would have been higher if they let the banks and the auto industry fail? And let’s deal with the fact that every unified GOP government, implementing tax cuts, deregulation, and all manner of other getting out of the way, crashes the economy. Every. Single. One.
This is the root problem. These old saws of fiscal responsibility, and economic growth, they don’t actually do what they claim. Instead they concentrate wealth (hint, that’s their real purpose), and even large swaths of people who are getting killed by them keep going along. Because of the other messaging that’s more personal. That’s what I keep trying to get across. The GOP is not a party of economics for the masses. Which is why its message is tailored to “better this than them”, them being a ling line of race, gender, origin, sexuality, religious, and ideological others. Better a Russian than a Democrat. Actual sign. And when installing completely unqualified judges (I would hope you grant that putting people who haven’t even tried cases in charge of courts is probably a fairly easily avoided mistake) who make noises about gutting the constitutional rights of “them” becomes the good part that you put up with by he rest for, then there is a huge problem going on, and it isn’t liberals. The killer is inside the house. |
The fact remains that there is a built in bounce back after a recession, and the best way to handle that uptick is to get out of the way.....initially. Sure it gets more complicated because obviously there are major downsides to allowing an economy to grow too fast and losing control if inflation. There is always the extremely difficult task in identifying a true bounce back and not a short term uptick. That said, keeping it simple and factual....policies are not what creates the recovery phase....it is a natural response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | But underemployment is better than unemployment is it not? |
I would suggest compare the numbers to Obama's....I assume Trump's ratio of full time employment or near full time employment is significantly better than the last administrations. The national media would never cover the breakdown of the modest job growth during the Obama years, but over 90% of "jobs added" most months under Obama were Part Time, Temporary, or Seasonal employment. That is why there was nearly no wage growth or inflation.
It is a way to massage the numbers that every administration attempts to do, but the media only reports it when it fits their narrative. For example....A person gets a job at a night club for 16 hours on the weekend.....they deliver newspapers 3 days a week for 10-12 hours, and the work at a pop up Christmas shop for 6 hours on Sunday.....well then the economy just created 3 jobs.....and it allows you to cycle people through to make it appear they have not been unemployed for very long. It is all in the details of the reports to some degree, but 99.9% of us only care about the top line....those 3 wonderful new jobs that were created...nobody talks about when they are combined will not even cover the rent. |
Again, searching for a partisan win, you ignore how those better jobs got lost in the first place, as well as the fact that we on the other side of the aisle have been talking about this phenomenon for years, including during obama. And of course there’s the fact that Obama had precisely two years to make emergency measures against one of the largest collapses in history, followed by six years of nothing getting passed. A reasonable discussion does not begin by a paragraph you know or should know to be filled with untruths part truths and omissions to try and score a victory that isn’t real.
And again, that’s the root problem. The rank and file are running around trying to own libs instead of solve actual problems.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hector the Pup wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: |
There are people who genuinely don’t care how he acts or behaves. They care about policy and the fact that they perceive he is facilitating a thriving economy. The best way to debate those people is argue that the economy will continue to do well without Trump more than lamenting the fact that Trump is a (bleep) person. I know people who didn’t vote for him in 2016 who will vote for him in 2020 because of the economy and because they don’t see a viable candidate making it out of the Democratic Party. |
What specifically about the economy is thriving under Trump that wasn't under Socialist President Obama? By most measures (which Trump used to think were garbage measurements) the economy either continued on the positive path that Obama set it on or hasn't even kept up with the rate of improvement as seen under Obama.
And of course the previous Republican president facilitated a Great Recession.
So, we know in reality it's not about the economy.
Unemployment
GDP Growth
Job Growth
Wage Growth
Median Household Income
Stock Market
National Deficit
Trade Deficit |
Recessions are cyclical, I don’t think it’s fair to put that on Bush although I was too young to follow politics back then. I think the fact we haven’t had one yet in Trumps presidency is a good thing as we are a few years overdue for one. Unemployment is at all time lows. Yes it’s continued the trend that began during Obama’s tenure but it’s tough to not give Trump any credit. He’s maintained the trend while surpassing those lows. It’s harder to continue to decrease unemployment the lower it goes yet he’s managed to do so. Median household income is up. The stock market is doing great. These are signs of a good economy. As I touched on earlier, Obama’s tenure was immediately after a recession which is a time you’d expect rapid growth. At the point we are at now, rapid growth wouldn’t generally be expected as we are approaching a recession not recovering from one. |
First off, no, you don't just assume rapid growth after a recession. Not without policies. And thus far, growth has not been near what Trump promised.
| Quote: | Over the 11 quarters since he was elected, U.S. real GDP has averaged 2.6% per year, not the 4%, 5% or even 6% that Trump vowed. By way of comparison, GDP averaged 2.4% over the final 16 quarters of Barack Obama’s presidency. All of the extra growth (and more) since 2017 was provided by a fiscal boost from tax cuts and spending increases as Republican lawmakers turned from austerity budgets under Obama to stimulus under Trump.
|
Trump's trade war has hurt America, not made us stronger and he is quite literally providing welfare to farmers because of it. The stock market is not doing better under Trump, than under Obama and it's way more volatile due to his trade war and public antics.
He hasn't made healthcare affordable. He hasn't improved our infrastructure. He's putting us more in debt than ever before.
So again, look deeper than your "it's the economy" claims. It's something else that Trump supporters like. |
Sure, but it’s far easier to create rapid growth through policy directly after a recession than when we are approaching one which is my point. Trump promised things he knew he couldn’t deliver, hyperbole is his shtick.
The trade war has negatively impacted many farmers, that’s for sure. But I think it could have a positive long term impact on the country. The S&P hit an all time high today. Sure it’s a bit more volatile but it’s doing very well.
Some people like Trump for other reasons but to deny there are any who support him because of the economy is ignorant. |
The more accurate point is that the people who look at the stock market or unemployment figures that go no deeper than a single percentage as indicators of the economy are ignorant. It's what this administration sells to the fools who support them because while very few of them have experienced real benefits from any policy decision, it makes them feel like they are winning too.
But rather than post articles to support that, I would suggest that you take a look at the percentage of Americans who are invested in the stock market and to what degree. Then take a look at the number of layoffs that have occurred in those companies that trade on the exchanges. Perhaps even look at how much of that huge tax savings they were gifted went into stock buybacks vs. going into improving the lives of employees.
After that, take a look at the unemployment numbers by salary vs cost of living and maybe take a look at the number of people who hold multiple jobs. |
I’m not looking at a single percentage, I was asked to provide examples so I did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | First off, no, you don't just assume rapid growth after a recession. Not without policies. |
but you do assume that because that is exactly how a Capitalist economy works. There is a natural elastic positive bounce that should correspond with the depth of the decline. In hundreds, if not thousands of Macro Econ 101 classes around the country each year, the professor will demonstrate this in the front of the class with a simple rubber band or quick chalk diagram. "Policies" in reference to ones that regulate or restrict in any way will only slow that positive bounce. The most effective approach at the conclusion of a recession is to simply get out of the way. |
So the bounce would have been higher if they let the banks and the auto industry fail? And let’s deal with the fact that every unified GOP government, implementing tax cuts, deregulation, and all manner of other getting out of the way, crashes the economy. Every. Single. One.
This is the root problem. These old saws of fiscal responsibility, and economic growth, they don’t actually do what they claim. Instead they concentrate wealth (hint, that’s their real purpose), and even large swaths of people who are getting killed by them keep going along. Because of the other messaging that’s more personal. That’s what I keep trying to get across. The GOP is not a party of economics for the masses. Which is why its message is tailored to “better this than them”, them being a ling line of race, gender, origin, sexuality, religious, and ideological others. Better a Russian than a Democrat. Actual sign. And when installing completely unqualified judges (I would hope you grant that putting people who haven’t even tried cases in charge of courts is probably a fairly easily avoided mistake) who make noises about gutting the constitutional rights of “them” becomes the good part that you put up with by he rest for, then there is a huge problem going on, and it isn’t liberals. The killer is inside the house. |
The fact remains that there is a built in bounce back after a recession, and the best way to handle that uptick is to get out of the way.....initially. Sure it gets more complicated because obviously there are major downsides to allowing an economy to grow too fast and losing control if inflation. There is always the extremely difficult task in identifying a true bounce back and not a short term uptick. That said, keeping it simple and factual....policies are not what creates the recovery phase....it is a natural response. |
This is not true. A downturn does not always turn back up. It can turn further down. And intervention before (which is difficult) during and after a downturn has huge effect in depth and duration of same, as well as the speed size and durability of the recovery.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is true that markets correct independently, seeking equilibrium. The myth is that that equilibrium is related to broad benevolence. The corrections of a market almost always benefit only some while hurting others, and in our markets, the benefitted is virtually always a small portion. Market corrections tend to concentrate wealth. If it is a tide, it does not lift all boats. It swamps many and drowns those without while the very largest boats ride ever higher.
Capitalism is the one system we know that works. But the same reason it works (greed) is also a reason it must be fettered and offset. You want a real debate? That’s where it is at. How much? But when you start hearing leave it alone, you aren’t in a debate. You’re in an attempted indoctrination that either the person selling doesn’t understand is false, or is trying to get you to not understand.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
And while we are at it, on the subject of racism vs economic motivations, let’s review what racism is. Racism is the belief in the unequal value of different races. Hate is an extreme form of racism, but is not required. You don’t even have to dislike the people you are racist against. You can even like them. Not wearing a swastika, not using the n word, those aren’t how one is not a racist. If one believes, for example, that the ideological and economic benefit they accrue from a particular party or leader offsets the racist actions and policy of that leader, one is a racist. Because that is the essence of placing the value of a group of people below your own. It’s group selfishness.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | It is true that markets correct independently, seeking equilibrium. The myth is that that equilibrium is related to broad benevolence. The corrections of a market almost always benefit only some while hurting others, and in our markets, the benefitted is virtually always a small portion. Market corrections tend to concentrate wealth. If it is a tide, it does not lift all boats. It swamps many and drowns those without while the very largest boats ride ever higher.
Capitalism is the one system we know that works. But the same reason it works (greed) is also a reason it must be fettered and offset. You want a real debate? That’s where it is at. How much? But when you start hearing leave it alone, you aren’t in a debate. You’re in an attempted indoctrination that either the person selling doesn’t understand is false, or is trying to get you to not understand. |
Bingo. I don’t think greed is the only or even biggest factor but you are correct when you say how much is the debate that should be had.
Corrections can concentrate the wealth but keep in mind it also levels the playing field a bit. Less well off people can make money off the recovery while rich people can lose what they had during the collapse and not recover. I think that’s important to point out. Capitalism, at its core, is competition for wealth and prosperity. There will always be rich and poor. Regulation should be implemented to level the playing field not to disperse wealth evenly or protect the wealthy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Wilt wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Wilt wrote: | | Come on, there are more important things to do, like posting ad nauseam about WVU. |
You are annoyed that I post about WVU athletics 1-2x a week in threads that focus on college sports? |
I'm not "annoyed" by it. You can post about it as much as you want. But you find time to write about stuff no one cares about (face it, no one on this board except you cares about WVU athletics, and I wrote that partly because I wanted to see if you would react to it, and you did, unlike many other times when you ignored comments directed you in this thread that are actually about political issues), but you have a tendency to come to this political thread every once in a while, post provocative stuff, and then when people ask you questions or ask for clarification, you conveniently disappear. |
And that would be relatively well and good except for the fact that adkindo all too often trashes this thread (along with his buddy AH) as a place where fair discussion can't be had and denigrates the regular participants in this thread as being unreasonable hacks.
It's so transparent and cowardly that it is pathetic. |
cowardly and pathetic? Says the guy that lives in a thread where 99% of the users are always within a degree or two of pure symbiotic thought. |
Well, first of all, I don't "live in" in this thread, though I do frequent it on a daily basis. And that is not because it is some place where everyone is in some narrow degree of likeminded thought. I have had contentious discussions with probably every other longterm and frequent participant in this thread. So clearly I have no need to hang out with people who only agree with me and enjoy a discussion involving strong disagreement. I am also one of those regulars who has stated on frequent occasion that I wish more people on the Right would participate here.
To get back to my point. Yes, what you do is cowardly. You have a well earned reputation as one of those people who hops in with a drive-by hit and then disappears when rebutted, rarely to follow up on the rebuttals. As I said above, that would be relatively well and good except that you then go into other threads and lambast this thread as a place devoid of meaningful, two-sided discussion. You have gone through LOOOONG stretches of obviously lurking in here without participation, yet somehow still frequently attacked this thread elsewhere. Now I will agree that you aren't as bad about it as people like AH, but you are still an offender. And this is not something I simply pull out of my ass. This is an observation made by many, independent of myself.
| Quote: | | A thread that every time you get backed into a corner (which for you is every time you challenge a moderate or conservative), you know multiple users will begin attacking whoever put you there..... |
Well, first of all, whether other people who agree with me speak up to also dispute what you or others may say has nothing to do with me. Secondly, this idea that I somehow need or rely on others is quite laughable. I would also point out that when I have a direct disagreement with someone, I make an effort to try and follow up on that. I don't just disappear for awhile and hope that rebuttal slips into the past - as I said, something you have a well founded reputation for doing.
| Quote: | | or the thread moderator will threaten them with banishment even though no rules have been broken. |
That's an issue that has nothing to do with me and is something you need to take up with "management". I have nothing to do with how the Mods moderate. So trying to pin that upon me is asinine.
| Quote: | | You would not last 30 seconds in a balanced political forum, much less one that leaned to the right....but it is me that is cowardly and pathetic. |
Yes, I have explained why that is. As for where I could or couldn't handle myself, once again you demonstrate the naivety (using the kinder word here) that leads you to make statements like because someone lives California (a left leaning state that apparently and ignorantly think isn't diverse and with areas that deeply lean red) I must be clueless as to what people around the country are thinking. This is hardly the only place I discuss politics and the other places I do are hardly "echo chambers". I am more than comfortable with a discussion of politics in any context and with people who reside across the breadth of the political spectrum. And when I do find myself in disagreements with a collection of people who disagree, I deal with that and I don;'t complain that I am somehow being ganged up upon, as you frequently do.
| Quote: | | I will not call you cowardly or pathetic, because the truth is it would be very cowardly and pathetic to toss that at someone in a forum where I am anonymous and know there are no consequences to my demeaning words. |
While, yes, to a degree this is an anonymous forum. At the same time it is a place where a great many of us "meet" to discuss on a very frequent basis on a number of subjects and have done so for years. So, there is a good deal of familiarity amongst us, even if we don't all meet up in person. When things are said here, it is not because one is afforded anonymity. It is because of the substance of the discussions as they have unfolded here. And let's be honest man, you have certainly engaged in your own comments of derision, so that high horse you think you're riding is more like a shetland pony with a broken back.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
In a recession who has money
What do they do with it
The already wealthy
Buy properties and businesses that middle income people lost due to bankruptcies
How can a recession help the middle class and lower? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
In a recession who has money
What do they do with it
The already wealthy
Buy properties and businesses that middle income people lost due to bankruptcies
How can a recession help the middle class and lower? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | Bol wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | I’m still capable of an interested in a political science and issues debate. The difference is there’s no one left outside of fellow Democrats and Democrat leaning independents to do it with anymore. Like Mitch, the GOP has closed shop down to the lowest foot soldier on even the idea of what a fact is. Accusing me of nothing but partisanship is like the “no puppet, you’re the puppet” debate moment. Of course I’m a partisan. I admit it. And that’s the first, honest step to a real debate. |
Omar, I am not trying to get under your skin....my honest perception is you have became an angry partisan. You continuously use nasty and vile descriptions of "Republicans"....not Trump or Mitch or Hannity....but "Republicans". Others have always made those ignorant comments in this thread, but you did not when I first began visiting this thread around 2014ish. I recall many times you making it known to me that you had mixed feelings on a partisan topic or you could at least see why someone thought a way you did not agree with at the time. I can't recall a conversation with you in this thread in the last 2-3 years where I did not clearly feel like a personal enemy. |
I can't speak for other posters, but perhaps this is because of Trump? I'm an independent who usually votes Dem, but until recently I thought Republicans were regular people with different opinions. Seeing how many of them support a president whose general behavior is an affront to basic human decency and civility, who plainly knows nothing about government, law or history, who has nothing to offer except empty boasts, insults and lies, has me confused, frankly. It really makes no sense to me why anyone would think this is good. For me personally it has nothing to do with policy or Supreme Court justices or any of that, I just think it's a terrible sign for civilization to have such an ignorant, irresponsible, immature, immoral person in the most important position in the country. That stuff is all fine for reality TV, tabloids and stand-up comedy, not for the presidency. It's really just ridiculous. |
There are people who genuinely don’t care how he acts or behaves. They care about policy and the fact that they perceive he is facilitating a thriving economy. The best way to debate those people is argue that the economy will continue to do well without Trump more than lamenting the fact that Trump is a (bleep) person. I know people who didn’t vote for him in 2016 who will vote for him in 2020 because of the economy and because they don’t see a viable candidate making it out of the Democratic Party. |
Or that the economy is not as exceptional as we continually hear. The GDP, the single best indicator is below average, using post depression, post WW2, or even the the Reagan era and beyond. The jobs data is very good, but what is better, what occurred during Obama, when it went from 10% to 4.2% or under Trump, when it has gone from 4.2% to 3.6%? Last I checked, the earnings of the average American has increased less than the latter part of Obama's admin.
So, you've got an averagish economy, yet we've (but let's be real here, it is more they, our children) inherited tremendous debt as a result of the tax cut. And let's not forget that these cuts have a baked in tax increase for the middle class at the latter portion of life of the bill.
Living on the credit card is never good. |
BJH,
You still haven't addressed the fact that this averagish economy, is based, in part, on debt--debt that allows us to live a better life, but at the expense of our children.
Also, regulations have been curtailed or ignored, so that a greater profit can be had. This also, in the form of environmental damage, will be our legacy, and yes, again at the expense of our children.
I will add, that you seem to just accept that all of these horrible traits of Trump are worth it, or at least, that's how his followers think. I will surmise the reason, in part, is that they are of a similar cut, lacking much of the morality (real or not) that much of the Republican Party professed--family values, ALL of the ten commandments, civility, balanced budgets, honesty, a strong disdain for Russia, the rule of law, and being stewards of the planet--and that they simply don't give a (bleep) about the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ContagiousInspiration wrote: | In a recession who has money
What do they do with it
The already wealthy
Buy properties and businesses that middle income people lost due to bankruptcies
How can a recession help the middle class and lower? |
By buying those properties, businesses etc you claim only rich people buy, at a lower price point. By the way, middle class people aren’t the only ones who go bankrupt in a recession, rich people do too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | While it is true that when there are divided legislative bodies, the house tends to make a fair amount of partisan legislation that the senate does not pass, and loudly trumpets that “obstruction”, it is also true that there used to tend to be a fair amount of compromise legislation, horse trading this for that. Newt Gingrich in fact did that with the Clinton administration.
Then the republicans discovered the value of absolute obstruction during obama. The most egregious examples being senators voting against their own bills when Obama indicated he would sign them. And while some delays of judicial nominees had been common from time to time, no precedent for the “you can’t have any nominee” (as a side note, no precedent for the shoving through of ridiculously unqualified ideologues who haven’t argued a single case to lifetime judgeships either).
Whataboutism is a common thing we do to justify our actions when they are not ok on the merits. There is no whatabout in this case. |
right....from the party self identified as the "resistance". What happened to you? A few years ago, you were one of the few that was capable of having an honest political science discussion.....now it is just partisan political hackery....pretending one political party is right about everything. |
Let's just put aside the blatant hypocrisy and irony in you, of all people, making that statement and get on to addressing the assertion. "What happened to you?" . . . as if simply because you now don't agree with him on some issues, he has been "compromised" and the once reasonable person has now just become a "hack". It can't be that this once reasonable person who could discuss issues has possibly evolved as the political world has done so itself. It must be that something happened to them, and they have surrendered reason and succumbed to irrational influences. It couldn't possibly be that you have stagnated as the political world has evolved and that you are rigorously and partisanly locked in. Omar must have become a hack.
Secondly, Omar has often been very critical of the Democratic party and clashed with others of us here over party strategies and issues. This would be something you would know if you actually participated in this thread. Instead, you simply rely on hit and run jobs on this thread, while (bleep) and moaning in other threads about how there can be no "discussion" in this thread. Discussion to you obviously meaning you get to say whatever you want, cast whatever aspersions you wish, without them being challenged or rebutted. And if someone does disagree with you, they are simply a political hack. |
this is the problem....what did my direct statement have to do with you? You live for the minion mob......the pile on. There is little to no original dialogue that can take place with you because your goals are the self validation that the minion mob and pile on that this thread provides in spades. |
I'm sorry. I was unaware that one was not allowed to respond to anything unless one is directly addressed or cleared by you.
[quote]To be clear, I did not call Omar a hack,[/quoye]
Oh please. Save the failed semantics. That's exactly what you did. And I don't say that out of some need for mob response. I say it because I don't it is the reality.
| Quote: | | I said his responses now resemble political hackery. He was one of the few users in this thread several years ago that did not subscribe 100% to party position and even when he leaned, did not take it to the absurdity levels. He did not get himself worked up into everything being good and evil. I have had discussions about topics such as firearm legislation that I recall at the time was reasonable. In my discussions with him over the last year or two, I no longer see any deviation from pure partisan talking points and an embedded anger that does not allow reasonable discussion with someone with an opposition position. |
As was addressed prior. That's not an accurate description at all. Secondly, you make that assertion devoid of the changing world of politics. You assert and assume that because you find yourself agreeing with Omar on a less frequent basis, that something must have "happened" to him, as if it is some failure or weakness on his behalf and not because the political climate has shifted extremely.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChefLinda wrote: | | Bol nailed it. |
He sure did.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | This is not true. A downturn does not always turn back up. It can turn further down. And intervention before (which is difficult) during and after a downturn has huge effect in depth and duration of same, as well as the speed size and durability of the recovery. |
and I stated this by pointing out the difficulty being identifying to true bottom of the recession and not being fooled by a slight uptick that has more decline to follow. In regards to the intervention...I think we are great with theory, but still basically clueless in implementation. I mean we are told if not for the actions taken in regards to giving/loaning the banks and auto industry billions of dollars, the recession would have been much worse. For every credible paper/report that makes that claim, there is a credible source that refutes it in part or whole. That level of economic, monetary and fiscal policy is a little beyond my pay grade.
Last edited by adkindo on Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:49 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | Bol wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | I’m still capable of an interested in a political science and issues debate. The difference is there’s no one left outside of fellow Democrats and Democrat leaning independents to do it with anymore. Like Mitch, the GOP has closed shop down to the lowest foot soldier on even the idea of what a fact is. Accusing me of nothing but partisanship is like the “no puppet, you’re the puppet” debate moment. Of course I’m a partisan. I admit it. And that’s the first, honest step to a real debate. |
Omar, I am not trying to get under your skin....my honest perception is you have became an angry partisan. You continuously use nasty and vile descriptions of "Republicans"....not Trump or Mitch or Hannity....but "Republicans". Others have always made those ignorant comments in this thread, but you did not when I first began visiting this thread around 2014ish. I recall many times you making it known to me that you had mixed feelings on a partisan topic or you could at least see why someone thought a way you did not agree with at the time. I can't recall a conversation with you in this thread in the last 2-3 years where I did not clearly feel like a personal enemy. |
I can't speak for other posters, but perhaps this is because of Trump? I'm an independent who usually votes Dem, but until recently I thought Republicans were regular people with different opinions. Seeing how many of them support a president whose general behavior is an affront to basic human decency and civility, who plainly knows nothing about government, law or history, who has nothing to offer except empty boasts, insults and lies, has me confused, frankly. It really makes no sense to me why anyone would think this is good. For me personally it has nothing to do with policy or Supreme Court justices or any of that, I just think it's a terrible sign for civilization to have such an ignorant, irresponsible, immature, immoral person in the most important position in the country. That stuff is all fine for reality TV, tabloids and stand-up comedy, not for the presidency. It's really just ridiculous. |
There are people who genuinely don’t care how he acts or behaves. They care about policy and the fact that they perceive he is facilitating a thriving economy. The best way to debate those people is argue that the economy will continue to do well without Trump more than lamenting the fact that Trump is a (bleep) person. I know people who didn’t vote for him in 2016 who will vote for him in 2020 because of the economy and because they don’t see a viable candidate making it out of the Democratic Party. |
Or that the economy is not as exceptional as we continually hear. The GDP, the single best indicator is below average, using post depression, post WW2, or even the the Reagan era and beyond. The jobs data is very good, but what is better, what occurred during Obama, when it went from 10% to 4.2% or under Trump, when it has gone from 4.2% to 3.6%? Last I checked, the earnings of the average American has increased less than the latter part of Obama's admin.
So, you've got an averagish economy, yet we've (but let's be real here, it is more they, our children) inherited tremendous debt as a result of the tax cut. And let's not forget that these cuts have a baked in tax increase for the middle class at the latter portion of life of the bill.
Living on the credit card is never good. |
BJH,
You still haven't addressed the fact that this averagish economy, is based, in part, on debt--debt that allows us to live a better life, but at the expense of our children.
Also, regulations have been curtailed or ignored, so that a greater profit can be had. This also, in the form of environmental damage, will be our legacy, and yes, again at the expense of our children.
I will add, that you seem to just accept that all of these horrible traits of Trump are worth it, or at least, that's how his followers think. I will surmise the reason, in part, is that they are of a similar cut, lacking much of the morality (real or not) that much of the Republican Party professed--family values, ALL of the ten commandments, civility, balanced budgets, honesty, a strong disdain for Russia, the rule of law, and being stewards of the planet--and that they simply don't give a (bleep) about the future. |
I don’t agree we are currently experiencing an average economy for the numerous reasons I’ve expressed above. And if you want to discuss debt in relation to politics, how do you think we are going to pay for the policies many of the democratic candidates are proposing? Debt is an issue that neither side seems too interested in fixing. I don’t believe climate change is as pressing of an issue as it is made out to be and I don’t think the policies proposed to correct it are worth the damage it will cause the economy. We need to make more progress without severely damaging the economy as I think many proposed solutions will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | Mainstream media and Twitter loses their collective minds because Louie Gohmert says the alleged whistleblowers name in his statement. The irony is he did not identify them as the alleged whistleblower, but the fact that everyone that has not been living under a rock for the last month already knows the name and can identify him within the statement illustrates how fictitious the outrage really is..... |
Here's some irony for you. Pamela Karlan simply mentions Barron Trumps name to illustrate a valid point (I'm not condoning the use of Barron's name in that setting, I'm simply using that instance to make a point) and did so in a way in no fashion judged, maligned or attacked Barron.
What happened? Melania and the GOP lost their collective (bleep). You know what else? Malenia and the GOP don't bat an eye when Trumps routinely attacks Greta Thrurnberg, the kids who spoke out after Parkland etc. . . . And that's not even getting into the truly dark stuff which is silently standing by while children are separated from their parents or when those kids die from neglect while in USBP custody.
So probably not a good idea for those on the right to bring up things like "faux outrage" . . .
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | This is not true. A downturn does not always turn back up. It can turn further down. And intervention before (which is difficult) during and after a downturn has huge effect in depth and duration of same, as well as the speed size and durability of the recovery. |
and I stated this by pointing out the difficulty being identifying to true bottom of the recession and not being fooled by a slight uptick that has more decline to follow. In regards to the intervention...I think we are great with theory, but still basically clueless in implementation. I mean we are told if not for the actions taken in regards to giving/loaning the banks and auto industry billions of dollars, the recession would have been much worse. For every credible paper/report that makes that claim, there is a credible source that refutes it in part or whole. That level of economic, monetary and fiscal policy is a little beyond my pay grade. |
It depends upon what you mean by credible (the debate we always get back to). There are some theoretical arguments against it, but all the historical arguments align with the fact that the intervention saved us from a worse recession or depression. The simple domino effect of the collapse of the auto industry is actually a pretty tangible and understandable thing.
FWIW, what really gets an economy moving again is stimulus. Not tax breaks. Definitely not belt tightening. Infrastructure, jobs, spending.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
