Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Trump's Miracle Economy

Page 3 of 6 [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

05 Oct 2019, 9:53 pm

EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
What's with the "we" thing? Is there some sort of collective hive mind here? Can't people just post as individuals without you imposing an us against them routine to deflect from the topic and derail?


If people are going to keep lying about how Trump is the one reason we have the current economic expansion, then that is going to have negative consequences for all of us.

If we can't even come to an understanding about that, then there isn't anything to discuss, really. Trumpsters are just going to continue to support and lie for their guy, because they think everybody lies as much as Trump, but Trump is their guy:



I regret now even trying to come to an understanding with you, especially with the way you try to project back onto me. Now I understand what Cenk says about how it's not about convincing you guys, it's about defeating you guys.


You are being absolutely ridiculous and disruptive.



Yeah. That's why I made the decision not to engage her on this forum awhile ago. It's a waste of time.


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

05 Oct 2019, 9:58 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
What's with the "we" thing? Is there some sort of collective hive mind here? Can't people just post as individuals without you imposing an us against them routine to deflect from the topic and derail?


If people are going to keep lying about how Trump is the one reason we have the current economic expansion, then that is going to have negative consequences for all of us.

If we can't even come to an understanding about that, then there isn't anything to discuss, really. Trumpsters are just going to continue to support and lie for their guy, because they think everybody lies as much as Trump, but Trump is their guy:



I regret now even trying to come to an understanding with you, especially with the way you try to project back onto me. Now I understand what Cenk says about how it's not about convincing you guys, it's about defeating you guys.


You are being absolutely ridiculous and disruptive.



Yeah. That's why I made the decision not to engage her on this forum awhile ago. It's a waste of time.


She reminds me a lot of karathraceandherspecialdestiny.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

05 Oct 2019, 10:33 pm

Antrax wrote:
beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
What's with the "we" thing? Is there some sort of collective hive mind here? Can't people just post as individuals without you imposing an us against them routine to deflect from the topic and derail?


If people are going to keep lying about how Trump is the one reason we have the current economic expansion, then that is going to have negative consequences for all of us.

If we can't even come to an understanding about that, then there isn't anything to discuss, really. Trumpsters are just going to continue to support and lie for their guy, because they think everybody lies as much as Trump, but Trump is their guy:



I regret now even trying to come to an understanding with you, especially with the way you try to project back onto me. Now I understand what Cenk says about how it's not about convincing you guys, it's about defeating you guys.


A certain Minnesotan representative was asked whether she would denounce a certain horrific practice. She replied that "She had denounced it repeatedly and was tired of being asked to denounce it when she had done so many times!" She continued with "How many times per week should I denounce it." (I'm paraphrasing these aren't exact quotes). I think she was 100% right in her response.

I have voiced my dislike for Trump and wish to see him out of office many times. I have expressed my concern over his norm-breaking and heavy criticism of his trade policy many times. How many times do I have to say I don't support Trump and want him out of the White House? Do I need to put it in every post?


I get you're not a Trumpster, but when it comes down to a candidate who supports universal health care vs. Trump, who are you going to support? You yourself said you think the tax cuts were better than universal health care ever could be.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

05 Oct 2019, 10:39 pm

Antrax wrote:

There's a two-fold reason for that:

1) As a libertarian I find certain schools of economic thought more dangerous than others. Simply put attributing the recovery to Obama's stimulus policies is more dangerous than attributing the current state of the economy to Trump's tax cuts. I will heavily criticize Trump's tariff policies, when they come up, but it seems even his defenders don't attribute the economy to those.

2) I find certain posters more reasonable than others. There are some that I just don't really engage with.


1) It sounds like your libertarian philosophy means you are programmed to label the stimulus package enacted by Obama as dangerous which is frankly ignorant. The world bank were the ones who advised western governments to use the same stimulus packages to kick start economies during the global economic recession. Our then prime minister Kevin Rudd did exactly the same thing in Australia and it spurred the economy in exactly the same way.

BTW the global recession was caused by the behavior of banks which were allowed to behave with impunity under the previous Bush administrations.

2) I assume you are directing this at me? doesn't particularly concern me now I know you are programmed right wing clone



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

05 Oct 2019, 10:54 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Antrax wrote:

There's a two-fold reason for that:

1) As a libertarian I find certain schools of economic thought more dangerous than others. Simply put attributing the recovery to Obama's stimulus policies is more dangerous than attributing the current state of the economy to Trump's tax cuts. I will heavily criticize Trump's tariff policies, when they come up, but it seems even his defenders don't attribute the economy to those.

2) I find certain posters more reasonable than others. There are some that I just don't really engage with.


1) It sounds like your libertarian philosophy means you are programmed to label the stimulus package enacted by Obama as dangerous which is frankly ignorant. The world bank were the ones who advised western governments to use the same stimulus packages to kick start economies during the global economic recession. Our then prime minister Kevin Rudd did exactly the same thing in Australia and it spurred the economy in exactly the same way.

BTW the global recession was caused by the behavior of banks which were allowed to behave with impunity under the previous Bush administrations.

2) I assume you are directing this at me? doesn't particularly concern me now I know you are programmed right wing clone


Unbelievably no one has gotten this post right. Cyberdad I've been engaging with you because I think you can be reasonable. I am not engaging with a certain unnamed poster because I do not think he can be reasoned with.

As for the stimulus package, its effects can be debated. I'm not saying it wasn't helpful, but there are a number of economists who think it slowed the recovery. This is very much an economic point that can be debated reasonably.

What I take issue with is blindly crediting the stimulus package for the recovery, when all economic theory says that the recovery would happen anyways.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Last edited by Antrax on 05 Oct 2019, 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

05 Oct 2019, 10:55 pm

beneficii wrote:
Antrax wrote:
beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
What's with the "we" thing? Is there some sort of collective hive mind here? Can't people just post as individuals without you imposing an us against them routine to deflect from the topic and derail?


If people are going to keep lying about how Trump is the one reason we have the current economic expansion, then that is going to have negative consequences for all of us.

If we can't even come to an understanding about that, then there isn't anything to discuss, really. Trumpsters are just going to continue to support and lie for their guy, because they think everybody lies as much as Trump, but Trump is their guy:



I regret now even trying to come to an understanding with you, especially with the way you try to project back onto me. Now I understand what Cenk says about how it's not about convincing you guys, it's about defeating you guys.


A certain Minnesotan representative was asked whether she would denounce a certain horrific practice. She replied that "She had denounced it repeatedly and was tired of being asked to denounce it when she had done so many times!" She continued with "How many times per week should I denounce it." (I'm paraphrasing these aren't exact quotes). I think she was 100% right in her response.

I have voiced my dislike for Trump and wish to see him out of office many times. I have expressed my concern over his norm-breaking and heavy criticism of his trade policy many times. How many times do I have to say I don't support Trump and want him out of the White House? Do I need to put it in every post?


I get you're not a Trumpster, but when it comes down to a candidate who supports universal health care vs. Trump, who are you going to support? You yourself said you think the tax cuts were better than universal health care ever could be.


Neither, I'll vote 3rd party like I did last election.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

05 Oct 2019, 11:18 pm

beneficii wrote:
Antrax wrote:
beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
What's with the "we" thing? Is there some sort of collective hive mind here? Can't people just post as individuals without you imposing an us against them routine to deflect from the topic and derail?


If people are going to keep lying about how Trump is the one reason we have the current economic expansion, then that is going to have negative consequences for all of us.

If we can't even come to an understanding about that, then there isn't anything to discuss, really. Trumpsters are just going to continue to support and lie for their guy, because they think everybody lies as much as Trump, but Trump is their guy:



I regret now even trying to come to an understanding with you, especially with the way you try to project back onto me. Now I understand what Cenk says about how it's not about convincing you guys, it's about defeating you guys.


A certain Minnesotan representative was asked whether she would denounce a certain horrific practice. She replied that "She had denounced it repeatedly and was tired of being asked to denounce it when she had done so many times!" She continued with "How many times per week should I denounce it." (I'm paraphrasing these aren't exact quotes). I think she was 100% right in her response.

I have voiced my dislike for Trump and wish to see him out of office many times. I have expressed my concern over his norm-breaking and heavy criticism of his trade policy many times. How many times do I have to say I don't support Trump and want him out of the White House? Do I need to put it in every post?


I get you're not a Trumpster, but when it comes down to a candidate who supports universal health care vs. Trump, who are you going to support? You yourself said you think the tax cuts were better than universal health care ever could be.


Pejorative terms like "Trumpster" or "liberal" et al are against the rules. Personal attacks like calling someone a troll are against the rules. You talk about the integrity of discourse as a lecturer, while braking rules and committing all sorts of logical fallacies.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

05 Oct 2019, 11:27 pm

Antrax wrote:
Unbelievably no one has gotten this post right. Cyberdad I've been engaging with you because I think you can be reasonable. I am not engaging with a certain unnamed poster because I do not think he can be reasoned with.

As for the stimulus package, its effects can be debated. I'm not saying it wasn't helpful, but there are a number of economists who think it slowed the recovery. This is very much an economic point that can be debated reasonably.

What I take issue with is blindly crediting the stimulus package for the recovery, when all economic theory says that the recovery would happen anyways.


I apologise for my response to point (2) as I thought you were directing this at me.

Obama is a lawyer not an economist so he took advice like many other world leaders did to address the GFC. My point was that any republican leader would have done the same to bail out the American (and ultimately global) economy.

Trump is, however, is going in a different trajectory in that he is going against strategic advice; for example creating trade wars with China. I suspect (as many do) that every-time he tweets something controversial his family and cronies are investing money in the share market. He is basically manipulating the share market to line his pockets.



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

05 Oct 2019, 11:36 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Unbelievably no one has gotten this post right. Cyberdad I've been engaging with you because I think you can be reasonable. I am not engaging with a certain unnamed poster because I do not think he can be reasoned with.

As for the stimulus package, its effects can be debated. I'm not saying it wasn't helpful, but there are a number of economists who think it slowed the recovery. This is very much an economic point that can be debated reasonably.

What I take issue with is blindly crediting the stimulus package for the recovery, when all economic theory says that the recovery would happen anyways.


I apologise for my response to point (2) as I thought you were directing this at me.

Obama is a lawyer not an economist so he took advice like many other world leaders did to address the GFC. My point was that any republican leader would have done the same to bail out the American (and ultimately global) economy.

Trump is, however, is going in a different trajectory in that he is going against strategic advice; for example creating trade wars with China. I suspect (as many do) that every-time he tweets something controversial his family and cronies are investing money in the share market. He is basically manipulating the share market to line his pockets.


I'll chalk it down to a communication failure on my part. I don't like to call out other posters, but the OP of this thread is not someone I engage with.

Agreed that a standard Republican does the same as Obama. Bush did a pretty large stimulus before Obama ever took office. Doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Doesn't mean it was the wrong thing either. Mainly I'm trying to fight the idea that the government can control the economy, because at least in an economy with a strong market component it can't. The recovery was going to happen stimulus or no stimulus. Whether the stimulus helped, hurt, or was a non-factor is debatable.

Trump's trade policy is disastrous. That is unequivocable. His tax policy is more of a gray area, though I lean toward it being a bad idea.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

06 Oct 2019, 12:03 am

EzraS wrote:
Pejorative terms like "Trumpster" or "liberal" et al are against the rules. Personal attacks like calling someone a troll are against the rules. You talk about the integrity of discourse as a lecturer, while braking rules and committing all sorts of logical fallacies.


Trumpster is not a pejorative:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Trumpster


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

06 Oct 2019, 12:08 am

Antrax wrote:
I'll chalk it down to a communication failure on my part. I don't like to call out other posters, but the OP of this thread is not someone I engage with.

Agreed that a standard Republican does the same as Obama. Bush did a pretty large stimulus before Obama ever took office. Doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Doesn't mean it was the wrong thing either. Mainly I'm trying to fight the idea that the government can control the economy, because at least in an economy with a strong market component it can't. The recovery was going to happen stimulus or no stimulus. Whether the stimulus helped, hurt, or was a non-factor is debatable.

Trump's trade policy is disastrous. That is unequivocable. His tax policy is more of a gray area, though I lean toward it being a bad idea.


I think libertarians are living in a fantasy world, as if the laws of physics do not apply to the USA. Experience with multiple countries all around the world, including all developed nations, and all but one member of NATO (USA), show that universal health care improves outcomes and increases access. But in the USA, people clinging to an ideology means we keep getting stuck with a broken non-system, and I'm farking tired of it.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

06 Oct 2019, 12:29 am

beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Pejorative terms like "Trumpster" or "liberal" et al are against the rules. Personal attacks like calling someone a troll are against the rules. You talk about the integrity of discourse as a lecturer, while braking rules and committing all sorts of logical fallacies.


Trumpster is not a pejorative:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Trumpster



"Trumpster
An incoherent uneducated ill-informed troll. Ignoring history of the man of orange complexion and a Chia pet on his head. Angry and mostly white in color. Not endearing. Really an insult painting the picture of a stupid individual lacking integrity. They say things like, he'll make "America great again" but have no f*****g idea how. They think 37% of the GOP voting for him is the "majority""

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... =Trumpster



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

06 Oct 2019, 12:31 am

EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Pejorative terms like "Trumpster" or "liberal" et al are against the rules. Personal attacks like calling someone a troll are against the rules. You talk about the integrity of discourse as a lecturer, while braking rules and committing all sorts of logical fallacies.


Trumpster is not a pejorative:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Trumpster



"Trumpster
An incoherent uneducated ill-informed troll. Ignoring history of the man of orange complexion and a Chia pet on his head. Angry and mostly white in color. Not endearing. Really an insult painting the picture of a stupid individual lacking integrity. They say things like, he'll make "America great again" but have no f*****g idea how. They think 37% of the GOP voting for him is the "majority""

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... =Trumpster


Sounds like a caricature...I've used a few myself to describe Trump supporters but they are mean't to be taken in jest not literally.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

06 Oct 2019, 12:53 am

cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Pejorative terms like "Trumpster" or "liberal" et al are against the rules. Personal attacks like calling someone a troll are against the rules. You talk about the integrity of discourse as a lecturer, while braking rules and committing all sorts of logical fallacies.


Trumpster is not a pejorative:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Trumpster



"Trumpster
An incoherent uneducated ill-informed troll. Ignoring history of the man of orange complexion and a Chia pet on his head. Angry and mostly white in color. Not endearing. Really an insult painting the picture of a stupid individual lacking integrity. They say things like, he'll make "America great again" but have no f*****g idea how. They think 37% of the GOP voting for him is the "majority""

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... =Trumpster


Sounds like a caricature...I've used a few myself to describe Trump supporters but they are mean't to be taken in jest not literally.


Calling someone a genius can either be a complement or a pejorative depending on the slant it is given.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

06 Oct 2019, 1:02 am

Ezra, (had to remove the quote, because otherwise I can't post this)

That was definition number 5, which you had to scroll past definition number 4 to get to:

Quote:
A Trumpster is an avid supporter and follower of Donald Trump. He is their light in the darkness. They do not functIon like your average run of the mill Republican, as they only quote Fox News in their daily debacles with every other political party when it is convenient and in favor of the almighty Trump.


So knock it off.

Also, you said you support universal health care, don't you? I seem to remember you said that a few weeks back. You know, maybe not in this thread, but I suggest speaking out about that. I think you can create some real positive energy.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

06 Oct 2019, 1:56 am

EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Pejorative terms like "Trumpster" or "liberal" et al are against the rules. Personal attacks like calling someone a troll are against the rules. You talk about the integrity of discourse as a lecturer, while braking rules and committing all sorts of logical fallacies.


Trumpster is not a pejorative:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Trumpster



"Trumpster
An incoherent uneducated ill-informed troll. Ignoring history of the man of orange complexion and a Chia pet on his head. Angry and mostly white in color. Not endearing. Really an insult painting the picture of a stupid individual lacking integrity. They say things like, he'll make "America great again" but have no f*****g idea how. They think 37% of the GOP voting for him is the "majority""

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... =Trumpster


Sounds like a caricature...I've used a few myself to describe Trump supporters but they are mean't to be taken in jest not literally.


Calling someone a genius can either be a complement or a pejorative depending on the slant it is given.

Well aren't you a little genius :lol: