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

Trump's Miracle Economy

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

Previous topic | Next topic

EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Oct 2019, 2:41 am

beneficii wrote:
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.



That definition also indicates it being a pejorative. Considering how rude you were to Antrax, it's a forgone conclusion you meant it as such.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Oct 2019, 3:48 am

EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
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.



That definition also indicates it being a pejorative. Considering how rude you were to Antrax, it's a forgone conclusion you meant it as such.


Trumpster is not a pejorative. It's an informal term, per Wiktionary. This is the 2nd time I'm posting the link:

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


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Oct 2019, 5:45 am

beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
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.



That definition also indicates it being a pejorative. Considering how rude you were to Antrax, it's a forgone conclusion you meant it as such.


Trumpster is not a pejorative. It's an informal term, per Wiktionary. This is the 2nd time I'm posting the link:

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


Wiktionary is not an official source like Webster's or any other real dictionary. You yourself could have made that entry. Of course the Urban Dictionary isn't official either. However in pitting the two equally unofficial dictionaries together, the Urban Dictionary provides more than one definition of "Trumpster" that upholds it being a pejorative.

"Trumpster" is also on the list of this Vice article: Every Insult the Left Uses to Troll Conservatives, Explained



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Oct 2019, 11:11 am

beneficii wrote:
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.


The data is far less conclusive on that than you think. Wait times, cancer survival times, etc. favor the U.S. system. Add in that the U.S. produces by far the most new medical treatments, and you have a legitimate debate. We've had this discussion a number of times so I don't think we should rehash.

To be honest I don't think you (and a lot of liberals) believe in the motivating force of profit as creating better results. I get tired of people pretending incentives don't matter.


_________________
"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

06 Oct 2019, 11:25 am

I'm getting confused. Is this tread about the people who are posting in it? Or certain words being used? Or about healthcare?



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Oct 2019, 11:36 am

EzraS wrote:
I'm getting confused. Is this tread about the people who are posting in it? Or certain words being used? Or about healthcare?


It's 4 threads masquerading as one. Simultaneous conversations between different posters. The healthcare discussion is at least tangentially related to the economic discussion.


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


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,538
Location: Right over your left shoulder

06 Oct 2019, 11:50 am

Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
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.


Sounds like basically what you're saying is 'I won't fairly criticize the failures of policies I support, because that will undermine my ideological positions. I will criticize the failures of policies I oppose though, since that supports my positions - even when the reality is the topic is more complicated than my ideology is willing to admit.'.

:|


You may want to read what I wrote again, if that was your takeaway.


I can re-read it all I like, it won't change the appearance. :wink:


Well given you have grossly misrepresented what I wrote, you are clearly projecting an argument I did not make into my post. Mainly in no point in my post did I advocate for any policy, only against certain policies (namely Obama stimulus policies and Trump's tariffs). Since I have not shown any support for any policies, saying I won't criticize their failures is greatly inaccurate.


If I've unfairly represented your views, feel free to point out how. If you're just squirming because I've called a spade a spade, just admit it.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Oct 2019, 12:09 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
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.


Sounds like basically what you're saying is 'I won't fairly criticize the failures of policies I support, because that will undermine my ideological positions. I will criticize the failures of policies I oppose though, since that supports my positions - even when the reality is the topic is more complicated than my ideology is willing to admit.'.

:|


You may want to read what I wrote again, if that was your takeaway.


I can re-read it all I like, it won't change the appearance. :wink:


Well given you have grossly misrepresented what I wrote, you are clearly projecting an argument I did not make into my post. Mainly in no point in my post did I advocate for any policy, only against certain policies (namely Obama stimulus policies and Trump's tariffs). Since I have not shown any support for any policies, saying I won't criticize their failures is greatly inaccurate.


If I've unfairly represented your views, feel free to point out how. If you're just squirming because I've called a spade a spade, just admit it.


I just did... You said I wouldn't criticize any policy I support when I never made a claim to support any policies. Many of the policies I support have drawbacks. I will acknowledge these. The reason I support them, is I believe the positives outweigh the negatives. So no I'm never going to say "this policy I support is terrible," I will say things like "it's true that this policy I support has this [negative outcome], but it's a necessary drawback in order to have this [positive outcome]"

For example I support free trade. Free trade leads to lower costs of goods and higher average quality of life. In the long run this promotes economic growth into new sectors that make up for lost jobs in old sectors. In the short run this leads to certain people losing their jobs from international competition and having a lower standard of living. They may be too old for the long term growth to benefit them. That is a negative effect of free trade. I believe it is outweighed by the positives, but that is undeniably a negative effect.


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


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,538
Location: Right over your left shoulder

06 Oct 2019, 12:45 pm

Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
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.


Sounds like basically what you're saying is 'I won't fairly criticize the failures of policies I support, because that will undermine my ideological positions. I will criticize the failures of policies I oppose though, since that supports my positions - even when the reality is the topic is more complicated than my ideology is willing to admit.'.

:|


You may want to read what I wrote again, if that was your takeaway.


I can re-read it all I like, it won't change the appearance. :wink:


Well given you have grossly misrepresented what I wrote, you are clearly projecting an argument I did not make into my post. Mainly in no point in my post did I advocate for any policy, only against certain policies (namely Obama stimulus policies and Trump's tariffs). Since I have not shown any support for any policies, saying I won't criticize their failures is greatly inaccurate.


If I've unfairly represented your views, feel free to point out how. If you're just squirming because I've called a spade a spade, just admit it.


I just did... You said I wouldn't criticize any policy I support when I never made a claim to support any policies. Many of the policies I support have drawbacks. I will acknowledge these. The reason I support them, is I believe the positives outweigh the negatives. So no I'm never going to say "this policy I support is terrible," I will say things like "it's true that this policy I support has this [negative outcome], but it's a necessary drawback in order to have this [positive outcome]"

For example I support free trade. Free trade leads to lower costs of goods and higher average quality of life. In the long run this promotes economic growth into new sectors that make up for lost jobs in old sectors. In the short run this leads to certain people losing their jobs from international competition and having a lower standard of living. They may be too old for the long term growth to benefit them. That is a negative effect of free trade. I believe it is outweighed by the positives, but that is undeniably a negative effect.


Your responses dovetail with my initial observation. Your assistance in making my point is appreciated. :nerdy:


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Oct 2019, 12:52 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
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.


Sounds like basically what you're saying is 'I won't fairly criticize the failures of policies I support, because that will undermine my ideological positions. I will criticize the failures of policies I oppose though, since that supports my positions - even when the reality is the topic is more complicated than my ideology is willing to admit.'.

:|


You may want to read what I wrote again, if that was your takeaway.


I can re-read it all I like, it won't change the appearance. :wink:


Well given you have grossly misrepresented what I wrote, you are clearly projecting an argument I did not make into my post. Mainly in no point in my post did I advocate for any policy, only against certain policies (namely Obama stimulus policies and Trump's tariffs). Since I have not shown any support for any policies, saying I won't criticize their failures is greatly inaccurate.


If I've unfairly represented your views, feel free to point out how. If you're just squirming because I've called a spade a spade, just admit it.


I just did... You said I wouldn't criticize any policy I support when I never made a claim to support any policies. Many of the policies I support have drawbacks. I will acknowledge these. The reason I support them, is I believe the positives outweigh the negatives. So no I'm never going to say "this policy I support is terrible," I will say things like "it's true that this policy I support has this [negative outcome], but it's a necessary drawback in order to have this [positive outcome]"

For example I support free trade. Free trade leads to lower costs of goods and higher average quality of life. In the long run this promotes economic growth into new sectors that make up for lost jobs in old sectors. In the short run this leads to certain people losing their jobs from international competition and having a lower standard of living. They may be too old for the long term growth to benefit them. That is a negative effect of free trade. I believe it is outweighed by the positives, but that is undeniably a negative effect.


Your responses dovetail with my initial observation. Your assistance in making my point is appreciated. :nerdy:


You have the blinders on, but ok whatever. Believe whatever you want. I sure as hell am not going to be able to reach you.


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


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,538
Location: Right over your left shoulder

06 Oct 2019, 1:34 pm

Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
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.


Sounds like basically what you're saying is 'I won't fairly criticize the failures of policies I support, because that will undermine my ideological positions. I will criticize the failures of policies I oppose though, since that supports my positions - even when the reality is the topic is more complicated than my ideology is willing to admit.'.

:|


You may want to read what I wrote again, if that was your takeaway.


I can re-read it all I like, it won't change the appearance. :wink:


Well given you have grossly misrepresented what I wrote, you are clearly projecting an argument I did not make into my post. Mainly in no point in my post did I advocate for any policy, only against certain policies (namely Obama stimulus policies and Trump's tariffs). Since I have not shown any support for any policies, saying I won't criticize their failures is greatly inaccurate.


If I've unfairly represented your views, feel free to point out how. If you're just squirming because I've called a spade a spade, just admit it.


I just did... You said I wouldn't criticize any policy I support when I never made a claim to support any policies. Many of the policies I support have drawbacks. I will acknowledge these. The reason I support them, is I believe the positives outweigh the negatives. So no I'm never going to say "this policy I support is terrible," I will say things like "it's true that this policy I support has this [negative outcome], but it's a necessary drawback in order to have this [positive outcome]"

For example I support free trade. Free trade leads to lower costs of goods and higher average quality of life. In the long run this promotes economic growth into new sectors that make up for lost jobs in old sectors. In the short run this leads to certain people losing their jobs from international competition and having a lower standard of living. They may be too old for the long term growth to benefit them. That is a negative effect of free trade. I believe it is outweighed by the positives, but that is undeniably a negative effect.


Your responses dovetail with my initial observation. Your assistance in making my point is appreciated. :nerdy:


You have the blinders on, but ok whatever. Believe whatever you want. I sure as hell am not going to be able to reach you.


Well, I've got to agree that one of us has choosen to wear blinders. :wink:


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

07 Oct 2019, 2:23 pm

EzraS wrote:
Wiktionary is not an official source like Webster's or any other real dictionary. You yourself could have made that entry. Of course the Urban Dictionary isn't official either. However in pitting the two equally unofficial dictionaries together, the Urban Dictionary provides more than one definition of "Trumpster" that upholds it being a pejorative.

"Trumpster" is also on the list of this Vice article: Every Insult the Left Uses to Troll Conservatives, Explained


Nope, I did not make that entry. You can check the "History" tab.


_________________
"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

07 Oct 2019, 2:39 pm

Antrax wrote:
beneficii wrote:
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.


The data is far less conclusive on that than you think. Wait times, cancer survival times, etc. favor the U.S. system. Add in that the U.S. produces by far the most new medical treatments, and you have a legitimate debate. We've had this discussion a number of times so I don't think we should rehash.

To be honest I don't think you (and a lot of liberals) believe in the motivating force of profit as creating better results. I get tired of people pretending incentives don't matter.


Interesting how you make us rely on your report of the discussions that we've had. My recollection of our conversations is quite a bit different, with the understanding that factors like innovation and wait times are a lot more complex than you put 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


wowiexist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 659
Location: Dallas, TX

07 Oct 2019, 3:07 pm

Antrax wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Factcheck:

Image

The current growth in jobs was directly attributable to policies enacted by Obama (refer above). Trump has been falsely trying to claim credit for trends that have nothing to do with his government.


Pet peeve of mine. Attributing economic trends to any particular administration. Both sides do this terribly. Obama's policies didn't cause the recovery, the recovery was happening whether he did anything or not. It's highly debatable whether his policies even helped or not.

For the record, Trump gets no credit either.


Generally I think that is correct. However I think if a president does something that directly affects economic policy it could impact the economy positively or negatively. I think if Trump were able to go all in with the trade war how he wants it would definitely have a negative effect.



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

07 Oct 2019, 3:19 pm

wowiexist wrote:
Antrax wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Factcheck:

Image

The current growth in jobs was directly attributable to policies enacted by Obama (refer above). Trump has been falsely trying to claim credit for trends that have nothing to do with his government.


Pet peeve of mine. Attributing economic trends to any particular administration. Both sides do this terribly. Obama's policies didn't cause the recovery, the recovery was happening whether he did anything or not. It's highly debatable whether his policies even helped or not.

For the record, Trump gets no credit either.


Generally I think that is correct. However I think if a president does something that directly affects economic policy it could impact the economy positively or negatively. I think if Trump were able to go all in with the trade war how he wants it would definitely have a negative effect.


Agreed. I guess I should amend it to "the government can't control the economy, but they can affect it, usually in a negative way."

Interestingly enough, Alexander Hamilton tried and failed for years to spur growth of U.S. manufacturing industry with various government investments. U.S. industry only grew under Thomas Jefferson when his embargo cut off British goods, making it so that the U.S. had to produce their own goods. Of course the US economy suffered greatly during that time.


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


wowiexist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 659
Location: Dallas, TX

07 Oct 2019, 3:28 pm

I don’t necessarily think that the economy has gotten bad although it could. One thing we have to remember when talking about the economy is that there are about fifty million different factors that go into the overall economy. It isn’t always as simple as a high stock market meaning a good economy or vice versa. I think that is how the average person views it. Also I have noticed a lot of people believe that if things are going good where they are it must be that way everywhere or vice versa.