***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[RustyShackleford]

oh yeah? what happened to them shove ready jobs again?

most economics concede that most of da stimulus didn't go anywhere but to bail out banks & special interest that didn't learn their lesson in da first place.

Always with the same talking point.

-You are conflating the bailout with the stimulus

-Yes, many liberals thought the stimulis had too many tax breaks and not enough spending. But guess what Obama wanted more spending, and it was the centrist that push back.

And you are moving the goal goal. A second ago you said he did nothing to help. Now you want to take issue with that he did that helped.

Maybe everyone should have not been so against nationalizing more of the banking industry if they were so opposed to banks getting bailed out and special interest getting helped.

 

[noskey]

Now now, don't turn up the heat on the snowflakes. They might melt and disappear... again...

 

[ninjahood]

And you are moving the goal goal. A second ago you said he did nothing to help. Now you want to take issue with that he did that helped.

he did nothing to help in da agregarte.

its not hard to understand.

someone giving you useless advice doesn't help you, also doesn't mean they didn't try, da 2 terms arent mutually exclusive.

 

[ninjahood]

He thinks someone called him Puerto Rican......

NT update must've made how your PC/phone read replies dyslexic or something cuz you so off base ...

 

[elpablo21]

Trump scraps plan for White House infrastructure council



http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...s-plan-for-white-house-infrastructure-council

scrap infrastructure council during infrastructure week brehs

 

[RustyShackleford]

he did nothing to help in da agregarte.

its not hard to understand.

someone giving you useless advice doesn't help you, also doesn't mean they didn't try, da 2 terms arent mutually exclusive.

Is the word you were looking for that dictionary app failed you "aggregate". Or why you trying to mimic some Upper Economic Town slang?

If you are speaking Spanish you comment makes even less sense.

Obama had huge influence over the fiscal policy of America during the time. He actions helped on aggregate.

Saving auto companies and those jobs helps on the aggregate, making the banking industry stable helps on the aggregate, extending unemployment benefits that keep consumption up helps on the aggregate.

Aggregate roughly means total. So if you add up all he has done and the conclusion is he helped avoid a worst outcome, he helped on the aggregate.

The hell you talking about advice. Most of Obama's policies he wanted to help the economy was not even put in place.

You don't even know how silly your argument is, do you? And no, I can't understand nonsense talking points you pull out the air is a desperate attempt to defend talking points you don't even understand.

 

[RustyShackleford]

NT update must've made how your PC/phone read replies dyslexic or something cuz you so off base ...

No one really could understand why you talking tough

I assume that is what offended you. Not like your buffoonery makes sense all the time.

Shrugs

 

[ninjahood]

No one really could understand why you talking tough

I assume that is what offended you

swing & a miss b.

and alot of Obama's policies got broomed cuz apparently it involved even more fiscal deficit spending coupled with reduced public natural resources exploration, and cranking up taxes..not exactly conducive to juicing da economy.

 

[EddieDoyers]

 

[EddieDoyers]

Obama already with the gold status

 

[aepps20]

Trump scraps plan for White House infrastructure council

The council, which had not yet been assembled, would have provided the White House with advice on how to spend billions of dollars to improve the nation's roads, bridges and railways.

"The president's Advisory Council on Infrastructure, which was still being formed, will not move forward," a White House official said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...s-plan-for-white-house-infrastructure-council

EXCELLENT choice, who needs a committee when Don has ALL the answers. Can't have LIBBIE SNOWFLAKES OR SJWS hurting the process.

 

[rexanglorum]

All told, growth under Obama averaged less than 1.5 percent annually. Analysts have called into question just how much a particular president actually impacts the economy during his tenure. But even though the labor market surged under the Obama administration, GDP numbers stubbornly held back.

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...9-percent-in-obama-administrations-final-days

Let's break this down. During Obama's first two years, he did have majorities in Congress but he was partially hemmed in by unified GOP opposition, conservative Democrats and a business and political elite enthralled to manufactured hysteria over "THE DEBT!!!". All this was happening in the midst of a economic depression brought about by previous administrations and congresses.

Given those limitations, Barack Obama did stop the free fall for jobs and GDP with the stimulus, he limited the worst behavior of Wall Street with the CFBP and he got us more expansive healthcare. All three of those could have been better and Obama bears some blame but other power brokers deserve most of the blame. Despite all those issues, Barack Obama's first two years were a net positive for the average person, when one considers the myriad obstacles that he faced.

The final six years all looked about the same economically and politically. Obama was in the White House, GOP controlled one both houses of Congress. The GOP did as much as they could to sabotage the economy, the Fed printed tons of money and we chugged along at 2.0 or so GDP growth. net job creation expanded, wages stagnated.

You're right that GDP never grow at over 3% but you're missing the bigger picture and that is the fact that our economy's rules and its structure, shaped over four decades, insures that few people outside of the top 10% will do well if GDP is under 3% and usually GDP has to hit 4% for non stock owning, non managerial workers to get a "taste." The problem is that in order to get to 4% growth in the US economy, with is an advanced economy, one usually needs to inflate some enormous bubble in financial markets and that leads to recession and workers losing whatever modest gains that they enjoyed during a brief, speculative driven boom.

If the rules of our economy did not empower finance so much and if our rules empowered workers, sustained 2% growth and job creation would have resulted in growing real wages for workers.

Let's get down to brass taxes here. You felt left out and I don't blame you. It was appalling to see Obama administration officials declare a recover and then an economic boom when the vast majority of workers enjoyed little to no wage increases and many workers found themselves working in more precarious jobs with fewer benefits then they worked in 10 or 20 years ago. I share your outrage but I am just bewildered as to why to focus on something and not other, more fundamental things.

oh yeah? what happened to them shove ready jobs again?

most economics concede that most of da stimulus didn't go anywhere but to bail out banks & special interest that didn't learn their lesson in da first place.

Two quick things on that and one longer point:

One, I will concede that too Democrats have a white collar, professional class bias. (All Republicans have that same bias well but they conceal it by pretending to be working class when they are in public). Barack Obama should have declared States with high unemployment to be in a State of emergency and he should have leaned on governors to invoke emergency clauses in their state constitutions and ease environmental restrictions and expedite building permits.

It amazes me how after the 1994 earthquake, when bridges and freeways were down and rich people in West LA were inconvenienced, man oh man, did the red tape vanish until the infrastructure that served Bel Air, Santa Monica and Malibu was made whole again. The 2008-2009 recession should have been treated like an Earthquake or a massive Hurricane and if the Democratic Party (and the Republican party) actually cared about blue collar workers, as much as they claimed, we would have had lots of shovel ready jobs.

Two, the stimulus was under powered. While 900 billion sounds like a lot, it was charged with rescuing a 14 trillion dollar economy that was in free fall. At the time, people like Paul Krugman were saying that the stimulus needs to be double. It was under powered, many people lost their jobs and homes and it happened that way because the sort of people for whom you vote, wanted it to happen that way.


Third and finally, you should blame the bond market vigilantes for so much of the stimulus going to simply plug holes in State and local budgets. You have to keep in mind that bigwigs in finance, deliberately conspire against governments that take on sustainable debt to finance fiscal stimulus. A perfect, rational market would price States issues bonds in such way that their interest would be low so long as that State took on a reasonable amount of debt. A rational bond market would know that State revenues fluctuate a great deal and that when the economy contracts, States revenues shrink a great deal and that in more robust years their revenues grow a great deal. A rational bond market would allow States, to take on some debt during lean years in order to stabilize their budgets and to push some fiscal stimulus. a rational bond market would know that those States can pay back those bonds during good economic times and therefore, the bonds should be issues at very low interest rates.

Sadly, the bond market is not very rational, the bond market is rigged. What happens is that even most and easily repayable debt on the part of States, causes the bond market's leaders to conspire to purchase that debt at very high interest rates. In the short run, it helps the finance guys make extra money. In the long run it disciplines States and their citizens into a State of permanent austerity. Due to an artificial lack of access to low interest loans.

Due to its size, ability to print money and its status as holding the world's reserve currency, the bond market's leaders cannot punish the Federal Government of the United States. So I have no problem with Obama giving a bunch of Federal money to States and cities that have been besieged by bond market vigilantes. Maybe if States had more flexibility, they could have created their own stimulus programs in 2009 and 2010 and the feds could have been free to fund projects that could have stopped mass unemployment from ever happening.

 

[everysingletime]

Well damn. According to CNN...6/10 ppl who voted for Trump say they'll never ever ever ever stop approving of Trump

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/trump-approvers-never-stop-approving-poll/index.html

 

[deleted]

Well damn. According to CNN...6/10 ppl who voted for Trump say they'll never ever ever ever stop approving of Trump

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/trump-approvers-never-stop-approving-poll/index.html

Of course...Why let something silly like reality get in the way of your pride?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Rex that was a great post but I don't know why you assume Ninja argues in good faith.

All he will do is take you criticisms of Obama, and regurgitate them to defend Trump, the GOP, and the white supremacy in the future.

 

[wavycrocket]

Well damn. According to CNN...6/10 ppl who voted for Trump say they'll never ever ever ever stop approving of Trump

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/trump-approvers-never-stop-approving-poll/index.html

It's a cult. I saw a post one of trumps FB posts that said they'd like trump to explore ways to abolish term limits for presidents....so that he could be president forever.

Not only was that hilarious....but trump is 71 years old and overweight. That dude has about 8 years left alive to be real

 

[aepps20]

Well damn. According to CNN...6/10 ppl who voted for Trump say they'll never ever ever ever stop approving of Trump

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/trump-approvers-never-stop-approving-poll/index.html

SMH WOW. SHOULD BE AT LEAST 9/10. I'D VOTE FOR DON A MILLION TIMES MORE.

 

[EddieDoyers]

Well damn. According to CNN...6/10 ppl who voted for Trump say they'll never ever ever ever stop approving of Trump

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/trump-approvers-never-stop-approving-poll/index.html

Eh to be fair this happens to every president
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/georgew-bush-jeb-bush-poll_us_5604456fe4b00310edfa78d0

you got GOPers still thinking George Dubya kept us safe and that the majority would vote for him again

 

[Brownstone]

Perfect example of well-read individual who lets his perspective skew what he reads. Not as extreme as the title of the video suggests, and he honestly seems well intentioned, but he fails to realize that black people as a group and the stats he named off to support there current state, are due to strategic policy, not mere happenstance.

 

[rolaholic]

Interesting piece from a reformed orange cultist

 

[Based Jesus]

Let's break this down. During Obama's first two years, he did have majorities in Congress but he was partially hemmed in by unified GOP opposition, conservative Democrats and a business and political elite enthralled to manufactured hysteria over "THE DEBT!!!". All this was happening in the midst of a economic depression brought about by previous administrations and congresses.

Given those limitations, Barack Obama did stop the free fall for jobs and GDP with the stimulus, he limited the worst behavior of Wall Street with the CFBP and he got us more expansive healthcare. All three of those could have been better and Obama bears some blame but other power brokers deserve most of the blame. Despite all those issues, Barack Obama's first two years were a net positive for the average person, when one considers the myriad obstacles that he faced.

The final six years all looked about the same economically and politically. Obama was in the White House, GOP controlled one both houses of Congress. The GOP did as much as they could to sabotage the economy, the Fed printed tons of money and we chugged along at 2.0 or so GDP growth. net job creation expanded, wages stagnated.

You're right that GDP never grow at over 3% but you're missing the bigger picture and that is the fact that our economy's rules and its structure, shaped over four decades, insures that few people outside of the top 10% will do well if GDP is under 3% and usually GDP has to hit 4% for non stock owning, non managerial workers to get a "taste." The problem is that in order to get to 4% growth in the US economy, with is an advanced economy, one usually needs to inflate some enormous bubble in financial markets and that leads to recession and workers losing whatever modest gains that they enjoyed during a brief, speculative driven boom.

If the rules of our economy did not empower finance so much and if our rules empowered workers, sustained 2% growth and job creation would have resulted in growing real wages for workers.

Let's get down to brass taxes here. You felt left out and I don't blame you. It was appalling to see Obama administration officials declare a recover and then an economic boom when the vast majority of workers enjoyed little to no wage increases and many workers found themselves working in more precarious jobs with fewer benefits then they worked in 10 or 20 years ago. I share your outrage but I am just bewildered as to why to focus on something and not other, more fundamental things.




Two quick things on that and one longer point:

One, I will concede that too Democrats have a white collar, professional class bias. (All Republicans have that same bias well but they conceal it by pretending to be working class when they are in public). Barack Obama should have declared States with high unemployment to be in a State of emergency and he should have leaned on governors to invoke emergency clauses in their state constitutions and ease environmental restrictions and expedite building permits.

It amazes me how after the 1994 earthquake, when bridges and freeways were down and rich people in West LA were inconvenienced, man oh man, did the red tape vanish until the infrastructure that served Bel Air, Santa Monica and Malibu was made whole again. The 2008-2009 recession should have been treated like an Earthquake or a massive Hurricane and if the Democratic Party (and the Republican party) actually cared about blue collar workers, as much as they claimed, we would have had lots of shovel ready jobs.

Two, the stimulus was under powered. While 900 billion sounds like a lot, it was charged with rescuing a 14 trillion dollar economy that was in free fall. At the time, people like Paul Krugman were saying that the stimulus needs to be double. It was under powered, many people lost their jobs and homes and it happened that way because the sort of people for whom you vote, wanted it to happen that way.


Third and finally, you should blame the bond market vigilantes for so much of the stimulus going to simply plug holes in State and local budgets. You have to keep in mind that bigwigs in finance, deliberately conspire against governments that take on sustainable debt to finance fiscal stimulus. A perfect, rational market would price States issues bonds in such way that their interest would be low so long as that State took on a reasonable amount of debt. A rational bond market would know that State revenues fluctuate a great deal and that when the economy contracts, States revenues shrink a great deal and that in more robust years their revenues grow a great deal. A rational bond market would allow States, to take on some debt during lean years in order to stabilize their budgets and to push some fiscal stimulus. a rational bond market would know that those States can pay back those bonds during good economic times and therefore, the bonds should be issues at very low interest rates.

Sadly, the bond market is not very rational, the bond market is rigged. What happens is that even most and easily repayable debt on the part of States, causes the bond market's leaders to conspire to purchase that debt at very high interest rates. In the short run, it helps the finance guys make extra money. In the long run it disciplines States and their citizens into a State of permanent austerity. Due to an artificial lack of access to low interest loans.

Due to its size, ability to print money and its status as holding the world's reserve currency, the bond market's leaders cannot punish the Federal Government of the United States. So I have no problem with Obama giving a bunch of Federal money to States and cities that have been besieged by bond market vigilantes. Maybe if States had more flexibility, they could have created their own stimulus programs in 2009 and 2010 and the feds could have been free to fund projects that could have stopped mass unemployment from ever happening.

What an excellent, well thought out post. It's almost as if you're educated in what you're speaking on, but who has time to do that when there's 18 hours of Fox news out there that needs to be watched?

 

[whywesteppin]

What an excellent, well thought out post. It's almost as if you're educated in what you're speaking on, but who has time to do that when there's 18 hours of Fox news out there that needs to be watched?

that's what higher education and free thought gets you: actual nuance and depth that is at once both critical and fair.

no, no, we can't have that in here.

 

[aepps20]

that's what higher education and free thought gets you: actual nuance and depth that is at once both critical and fair.

no, no, we can't have that in here.

Not on my watch. If it ain't about COAL, locking her up, Barson or how DAPPER DON LOOKED on Inauguration Day, it doesn't matter.

 

[everysingletime]

Trump called Barcelona a terror attack within a day without the identity of the driver even being released.


But I thought da don needed all da facts before he makes a statement

I hate this man so much

 

[EddieDoyers]

Interesting piece from a reformed orange cultist

Man **** the guy who wrote this
He's not mad at the agenda, he only regrets voting for Trump because of "morals"....he chose the option to play dumb during the election year just because he felt Americans got too many entitlements.
What a smug elitist.