Trump, Trump supporters, Socialism, and the Economy

[P@triot]

When I start threads like this and ask questions like this, a little part of me always wonders if I've missed something, and if someone will be able to completely blow my premise out of the water.

You missed everything. And I’ve completely blown your premise out of the water. Your unjust (and quite ignorant) ego is cute as hell though. Your belief in yourself even when you’ve failed miserably and humiliated yourself by exposing your ignorance is precious.

 

[pknopp]

Faith in the economy and American capitalism must be maintained at any cost. That is the only economic philosophy at work right now.

Faith in the economy is long gone.

Consumer debt is what really drives growth in the economy. A whole lot of people are taking on debt at record levels. Taking on debt requires people to be confident that they will be able to pay it off for years into the future. That takes faith.

Consumer debt to GDP ratio has been declining for over a decade:

All that says is that consumers are unable to keep up with the Fed.

If that were true we'd have had runaway inflation over the same period. The economy is in balance … just the right amount of dollars chasing the goods and services we produce. Your fear-mongering sounds suspiciously like the Chicken Little "Recession, Recession" cries of a year ago:

The Next Recession Is Coming. Now What?

And of one Nobel Prize winning jackass:

Paul Krugman: Trump will bring global recession

Krugman is a partisan hack.

If you think we can print, print, debt, debt forever go ahead and think it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You won't agree with the answer: Because we're all in this together, and it's prudent to find a point at which we recognize that fiscally without putting too much of a drag on the dynamics of capitalism.

What do you mean by "we're all in this together"?

.

Come on. We all live in the same country, around each other. I don't need to explain that.
.

What does that have to do with government taking my money and giving it to someone else?

If you're talking about common use (roads etc), I understand. Otherwise, you are violating your own thread rules by stating platitudes.

I'm gonna need a better understanding of what you mean by "all in this together."

.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Cutting the Federal government in 1/2 and stop paying welfare to shitfucks who sit on the lazy liberal butts. It isnt a revenue problem, it is a government spending problem.

Well, Trump sure as hell is not going to do that.

This year we are taking in the largest tax revenues ever. Liberal policies are spending 1 trillion more. 1 trillion dollars gets paid to the War on Poverty. Stop paying for that endless war, the budget is balanced.

It is not just Liberal policies, both parties are big spending parties, neither have any desire to cut spending, the only disagreement is where the money should be spent.

Have to take back the house, and when Nan from San Fransicko gives up the gavel, you will see spending cuts...

That sounds awesome...yet during the two years that the Repubs held the House, the Senate and the White House deficits rose by 33%.

Quit being a parrot for your party, look at reality.

You seem to have forgot some democrat votes were needed to pass the budget. And those same democrats are the ones that shut the government down because they didn’t get the money they wanted to spend.

And this is why we have a 23 trillion dollar deficit. The party loyalist will never, ever blame their own party, it is always the other side's fault. This has been going on for decades and you sheep have not figured it out yet.

When one side is 90% of the problem and the other is 10% I can always count on you to charge in and blame both equally.

 

[Mac1958]

You won't agree with the answer: Because we're all in this together, and it's prudent to find a point at which we recognize that fiscally without putting too much of a drag on the dynamics of capitalism.

What do you mean by "we're all in this together"?

.

Come on. We all live in the same country, around each other. I don't need to explain that.
.

What does that have to do with government taking my money and giving it to someone else?

If you're talking about common use (roads etc), I understand. Otherwise, you are violating your own thread rules by stating platitudes.

I'm gonna need a better understanding of what you mean by "all in this together."

.

Yes, I am talking about common use. I am also talking about the size, scope and cost of the social safety net, if one exists at all.

I find it difficult to believe that you really don't know what I'm talking about.
.

 

[P@triot]

You appear to think that the two Presidents were operating under the same conditions.

Actually, I just proved that they weren’t operating under the same conditions. MaObama turned the federal government into an ATM machine that had no limit and required no PIN. Over $10 trillion in socialism and nothing to show for it.

There's nothing I can say there.

No, there isn’t. This is what I do. I leave ignorant leftists speechless and frustrated by hitting them hard with indisputable data.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

So we’re to the punt that the socialism we now have in place is going to destroy the nation no matter what.

I sure hope not.

What I think we need to do is recognize the obvious fact that this all exists on a fragile continuum, and work to find and maintain that continuum without ignorantly screaming SOCIALISM at every last damn thing that moves.
.

So the solution to the socialism problem we have is to stop bringing up the dangers of socialism. Instead of pointing out the debt driving factors of the socialist programs we have let’s just be quiet and let more of it happen. That will fix everything.

Why would you think that?
.

Exactly, why do you think that?

 

[Mac1958]

So we’re to the punt that the socialism we now have in place is going to destroy the nation no matter what.

I sure hope not.

What I think we need to do is recognize the obvious fact that this all exists on a fragile continuum, and work to find and maintain that continuum without ignorantly screaming SOCIALISM at every last damn thing that moves.
.

So the solution to the socialism problem we have is to stop bringing up the dangers of socialism. Instead of pointing out the debt driving factors of the socialist programs we have let’s just be quiet and let more of it happen. That will fix everything.

Why would you think that?
.

Exactly, why do you think that?

Well, please quote me saying that, since I don't remember doing so.

Then I'll be happy to comment.
.

 

[CWayne]

I know this thread will degenerate quickly into platitudes, talking points and insults, but what the hell.

Right now the economy is in good shape. Friday's employment & hiring figures were freakin' outstanding to say the least, and there's a good chance we'll keep purring along for the foreseeable future. And that's not something you can always say. So, that's some pretty damn good stuff.

While this is happening, Trump and his supporters are predictably crowing and very proud. Yeah, I can see that, and it's certainly amplified by the current partisan political environment. Yeah, I get that too.

The three largest factors -- and even the slightest internet research will confirm this -- driving this expansion are (1) the aggressive tax cuts, (2) the aggressive increase in government spending, and (3) the Fed pouring HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS into markets to grease the system.

Then, on top of that will be the increase in confidence and positivity with both consumers and businesses. Icing on the cake, good stuff, let's go.

So perhaps Trump supporters can explain why they're so against socialism. Two of the largest three contributing stimulative factors -- massive government spending and the Fed's actions -- would have been considered terrible just four years ago, yet the attacks on socialism (whatever the hell the definition is that the person is using) are only escalating.

Can someone explain this, reasonably, civilly, intelligently, and with original, independent thought?
.

I disagree that 2 and 3 are driving factors.

Number 1, when coupled with the other significant driving factor -- deregulation -- become synergistic and a multiplying effect on prosperity. The problem is that when there was nearly 2 trillion dollars in a downward force on the economy due to regulatory oppression, just a minuscule reduction in that downward force has huge dividends.

The large and excessive government spending is a negative, not a positive. That spending is coming at the expense of two or three or more future generations.

The FED is going to do what the FED does and as we have seen, the President of the United States is nothing more than a vassal to their whims.

 

[Mac1958]

I know this thread will degenerate quickly into platitudes, talking points and insults, but what the hell.

Right now the economy is in good shape. Friday's employment & hiring figures were freakin' outstanding to say the least, and there's a good chance we'll keep purring along for the foreseeable future. And that's not something you can always say. So, that's some pretty damn good stuff.

While this is happening, Trump and his supporters are predictably crowing and very proud. Yeah, I can see that, and it's certainly amplified by the current partisan political environment. Yeah, I get that too.

The three largest factors -- and even the slightest internet research will confirm this -- driving this expansion are (1) the aggressive tax cuts, (2) the aggressive increase in government spending, and (3) the Fed pouring HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS into markets to grease the system.

Then, on top of that will be the increase in confidence and positivity with both consumers and businesses. Icing on the cake, good stuff, let's go.

So perhaps Trump supporters can explain why they're so against socialism. Two of the largest three contributing stimulative factors -- massive government spending and the Fed's actions -- would have been considered terrible just four years ago, yet the attacks on socialism (whatever the hell the definition is that the person is using) are only escalating.

Can someone explain this, reasonably, civilly, intelligently, and with original, independent thought?
.

I disagree that 2 and 3 are driving factors.

Number 1, when coupled with the other significant driving factor -- deregulation -- become synergistic and a multiplying effect on prosperity. The problem is that when there was nearly 2 trillion dollars in a downward force on the economy due to regulatory oppression, just a minuscule reduction in that downward force has huge dividends.

The large and excessive government spending is a negative, not a positive. That spending is coming at the expense of two or three or more future generations.

The FED is going to do what the FED does and as we have seen, the President of the United States is nothing more than a vassal to their whims.

Thanks for the civil response.
.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Again, why should we not be allowed to decide how to spend our money? Why should government get to take it from us and spend it the way government wants to spend it?

You won't agree with the answer: Because we're all in this together, and it's prudent to find a point at which we recognize how to approach that, without putting too much of a drag on the dynamics of capitalism.

Just remember: People who disagree with you, vote. And those on the Right who are playing this all-or-nothing game are taking a huge risk.

And one more thing: If we all have input on something, we all share responsibility for the outcome. That makes figuring this stuff out even MORE important.
.

Same old tired Mac thread,,,,get a new whine. Repubs made a renewed push to address the budget under Obama,,,there was no stomach for it and it died. That's comes along about once a decade. Next time it does maybe get on board eh.

 

[Mac1958]

Again, why should we not be allowed to decide how to spend our money? Why should government get to take it from us and spend it the way government wants to spend it?

You won't agree with the answer: Because we're all in this together, and it's prudent to find a point at which we recognize how to approach that, without putting too much of a drag on the dynamics of capitalism.

Just remember: People who disagree with you, vote. And those on the Right who are playing this all-or-nothing game are taking a huge risk.

And one more thing: If we all have input on something, we all share responsibility for the outcome. That makes figuring this stuff out even MORE important.
.

Same old tired Mac thread,,,,get a new whine. Repubs made a renewed push to address the budget under Obama,,,there was no stomach for it and it died. That's comes along about once a decade. Next time it does maybe get on board eh.

Fortunately I'm not expecting straight answers to my question.

I've gotten a few though!
.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You won't agree with the answer: Because we're all in this together, and it's prudent to find a point at which we recognize that fiscally without putting too much of a drag on the dynamics of capitalism.

What do you mean by "we're all in this together"?

.

Come on. We all live in the same country, around each other. I don't need to explain that.
.

What does that have to do with government taking my money and giving it to someone else?

If you're talking about common use (roads etc), I understand. Otherwise, you are violating your own thread rules by stating platitudes.

I'm gonna need a better understanding of what you mean by "all in this together."

.

Yes, I am talking about common use. I am also talking about the size, scope and cost of the social safety net, if one exists at all.

I find it difficult to believe that you really don't know what I'm talking about.
.

"All in this together" is a phrase equivalent to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

We live in the same country and use the same resources. After that, everybody can fuck off.

There is so much government spending on things that have nothing to do with any type of social safety net or national protection. That is the very definition of taking money and using it as a government pleases, without consent.

Of the three items you listed, two of those are wholly and demonstrably unnecessary.

Thus, we all agree that aggressive tax policy in favor of businesses is the one and only factor in stimulating the economy and growing jobs.

We don't need government spending. We can have private spending if government would get the fuck out of the way and stop stealing all the money.

We don't need a Fed. That is complete and total bullshit that should've been done away with years ago.

I'm glad we agree that aggressive tax policy in favor of businesses is the sole and one factor and should be the policy of every American.

.

 

[P@triot]

And one more thing: If we all have input on something, we all share responsibility for the outcome. That makes figuring this stuff out even MORE important.

Show me a single leftist who actually “shares” responsibility for outcomes. Most of them won’t even take the damn responsibility to get a job and support themselves.

What you’re trying to do is convince people that idealism is actual reality. It isn’t. Ideally, we’d all be hard working people, honest to a fault, committed to taking responsibility for outcomes.

The reality? People like Joe Biden are filthy, dishonest dirt-bags who exploit people like you so he can become a multi-multi-millionaire.

History has proven that people are flawed and fallible and that is why our founders set up a system creating as much independence and freedom as possible. To limit how much you could be a predatory parasite on my life.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Again, why should we not be allowed to decide how to spend our money? Why should government get to take it from us and spend it the way government wants to spend it?

You won't agree with the answer: Because we're all in this together, and it's prudent to find a point at which we recognize how to approach that, without putting too much of a drag on the dynamics of capitalism.

Just remember: People who disagree with you, vote. And those on the Right who are playing this all-or-nothing game are taking a huge risk.

And one more thing: If we all have input on something, we all share responsibility for the outcome. That makes figuring this stuff out even MORE important.
.

Same old tired Mac thread,,,,get a new whine. Repubs made a renewed push to address the budget under Obama,,,there was no stomach for it and it died. That's comes along about once a decade. Next time it does maybe get on board eh.

Fortunately I'm not expecting straight answers to my question.

I've gotten a few though!
.

That is the answer. Budget restraint pushes are cyclical. Did you mock the Teabaggers ,,,be honest. What do you think of Trumps proposals in State of The Union? Some I think have merit some I think the bureaucrats will work around.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Well, Trump sure as hell is not going to do that.


It is not just Liberal policies, both parties are big spending parties, neither have any desire to cut spending, the only disagreement is where the money should be spent.

Have to take back the house, and when Nan from San Fransicko gives up the gavel, you will see spending cuts...

That sounds awesome...yet during the two years that the Repubs held the House, the Senate and the White House deficits rose by 33%.

Quit being a parrot for your party, look at reality.

You seem to have forgot some democrat votes were needed to pass the budget. And those same democrats are the ones that shut the government down because they didn’t get the money they wanted to spend.

And this is why we have a 23 trillion dollar deficit. The party loyalist will never, ever blame their own party, it is always the other side's fault. This has been going on for decades and you sheep have not figured it out yet.

When one side is 90% of the problem and the other is 10% I can always count on you to charge in and blame both equally.

If only that were true. But it is not. Neither side spends more than the other, the only way they might differ on is what it should be spent on.

Your god sitting the the White House submitted the largest budget request in history, by almost a trillion dollars. But he is not the problem...

 

[edthecynic]

When I start threads like this and ask questions like this, a little part of me always wonders if I've missed something, and if someone will be able to completely blow my premise out of the water.

So far, that's not happening. "Fake News" appears to be the Borg's response.
.

So you didn't click on the link to the actual data, no surprise there!
Prove my NUMBERS wrong before you pat yourself on the back!

I didn't read your post because, like the Trumpsters, you didn't directly address the question.

That's fine, I'm just not required to enable it.
.

You didn't read my post because you can't tolerate being corrected with actual data to back it up. My post shot down the very premise you began your post with making your question unsupported. That you can't abide!

 

[eagle1462010]

So perhaps Trump supporters can explain why they're so against socialism.

Mandatory spending is the Elephant...............it is Socialism and Safety nets.............it is going Broke......and it's unfunded Liabilities CAN'T BE PAID.

Dems answer.........put it on Steroids and kill us quicker............Under the Constitution the Fed was supposed to have Enumerated powers.........once Politicians got their hands on the Tax Payers money..........they screwed us all saying it was for our own good.

Allowing Bankers control of our currency was another warning from the founders..........on deaf ears as the Politicians greased their bank rolls for their own profit over serving the people.

This will continue til the world has a Global Reset as it is UNSUSTAINABLE.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

You won't agree with the answer: Because we're all in this together, and it's prudent to find a point at which we recognize that fiscally without putting too much of a drag on the dynamics of capitalism.

What do you mean by "we're all in this together"?

.

Come on. We all live in the same country, around each other. I don't need to explain that.
.

What does that have to do with government taking my money and giving it to someone else?

If you're talking about common use (roads etc), I understand. Otherwise, you are violating your own thread rules by stating platitudes.

I'm gonna need a better understanding of what you mean by "all in this together."

.

And one more thing: If we all have input on something, we all share responsibility for the outcome. That makes figuring this stuff out even MORE important.

Show me a single leftist who actually “shares” responsibility for outcomes. Most of them won’t even take the damn responsibility to get a job and support themselves.

What you’re trying to do is convince people that idealism is actual reality. It isn’t. Ideally, we’d all be hard working people, honest to a fault, committed to taking responsibility for outcomes.

The reality? People like Joe Biden are filthy, dishonest dirt-bags who exploit people like you so he can become a multi-multi-millionaire.

History has proven that people are flawed and fallible and that is why our founders set up a system creating as much independence and freedom as possible. To limit how much you could be a predatory parasite on my life.

Youre all tax slaves
The "socialist " would rather you just be a regular old slave or die

 

[Mac1958]

Have to take back the house, and when Nan from San Fransicko gives up the gavel, you will see spending cuts...

That sounds awesome...yet during the two years that the Repubs held the House, the Senate and the White House deficits rose by 33%.

Quit being a parrot for your party, look at reality.

You seem to have forgot some democrat votes were needed to pass the budget. And those same democrats are the ones that shut the government down because they didn’t get the money they wanted to spend.

And this is why we have a 23 trillion dollar deficit. The party loyalist will never, ever blame their own party, it is always the other side's fault. This has been going on for decades and you sheep have not figured it out yet.

When one side is 90% of the problem and the other is 10% I can always count on you to charge in and blame both equally.

If only that were true. But it is not. Neither side spends more than the other, the only way they might differ on is what it should be spent on.

Your god sitting the the White House submitted the largest budget request in history, by almost a trillion dollars. But he is not the problem...

I'm sure it's someone else's fault.


.