Politics Can our Republican friends here please explain something...

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I don't at all think Trump is a Libertarian, or even a libertarian (small l). Just that some things he does will make Libertarians happy. Like reducing government, cutting taxes, reducing regulations, etc.

Many things he does, especially on immigration/building wall, do not make us Libertarians happy. Or his proposed massive budget deficits (tax cuts are OK, but increased spending instead of cutting spending is foolish).

Classical Conservatism (e.g. Goldwater/Reagan/Burke) is a 3 legged stool, so to speak. One is Libertarianism, one is traditional values, and one is anti-communism. What passes for conservatism today is warmongering, bible thumping, and intolerance toward non European immigrants (count me out). Yet there still is an actual Liberty Caucus in the republican party - something you won't find in the democratic one.

It's not surprising to see some of that Libertarian philosophy in Trump's "conservative" ideology.

It is quite clear that our troops remain in Afghanistan only because he had to be talked into keeping troops there.
Tax cut? Which tax cut line are you in denny? The one that gets a single peanut or the 1% that gets a truck load of peanuts. I don;t consider a single peanut as a tax cut, especially when you factor in all the other programs being cut that will cost us all more money. Don't eat your peanut all at once and be sure to split it up evenly with your family. lol
 
Tax cut? Which tax cut line are you in denny? The one that gets a single peanut or the 1% that gets a truck load of peanuts. I don;t consider a single peanut as a tax cut, especially when you factor in all the other programs being cut that will cost us all more money. Don't eat your peanut all at once and be sure to split it up evenly with your family. lol

The one that got me $50/paycheck. I love it.
 
The one that got me $50/paycheck. I love it.

wow, $50? lol

I assume that works out to $100 a month? So you're in the line that gets a peanut while Trump and his buddies are getting truck loads of peanuts. You are an easy sell out and suckered easily all the while the national debt climbs over 1 trillion dollars and growing. You better put that under your pillow as likely stuff to follow will be yanking that $50 away.
 
Last edited:
Trump administration slaps 3 Russian entities and 19 individuals with sanctions. Reported on CNBC just now.

Manchurian Candiate.

:lol:
 
wow, $50? lol

I assume that works out to $100 a month? So you're in the line that gets a peanut while Trump and his buddies are getting truck loads of peanuts. You are an easy sell out and suckered easily all the while the national debt climbs over 1 trillion dollars and growing. You better put that under your pillow as likely stuff to follow will be yanking that $50 away.

I bet you had no problem with Obama running up debts 10x what you're complaining about now.
 
Trump administration slaps 3 Russian entities and 19 individuals with sanctions. Reported on CNBC just now.

Manchurian Candiate.

:lol:

Just a bunch of fakery to make it look like he is doing something. Those 3 entities and 19 individuals will not be affected in the least.
 
Nope! Those that dance to the tune of the pipe, always follow the pipe.
That's why I knew my No Putin? line would get a like or two. I know I say likes shouldn't be used that way but I knew it was coming. I was going to go with "why aren't we bombing the Kremlin????"

Thought that would be too obvious.
 
I bet you had no problem with Obama running up debts 10x what you're complaining about now.

Donald Trump (as projected in FY 2019 budget): Plans to add $8.282 trillion, a 41 percent increase from the $20.245 trillion debt at the end of Obama's last budget, FY 2017. If he spends as he hopes, Trump will add the second-highest dollar amount in history. More important, he will add almost as much in his first term as Obama did in two terms.

  • FY 2021 - $1.119 trillion.
  • FY 2020 - $1,198 trillion.
  • FY 2019 - $1.225 trillion.
  • FY 2018 - $1.233 trillion.
Things appear to just be going peachy right? Obama had to deal with one of the worst depressions the USA has experienced thanks to Bush and his administration.
 
Donald Trump (as projected in FY 2019 budget): Plans to add $8.282 trillion, a 41 percent increase from the $20.245 trillion debt at the end of Obama's last budget, FY 2017. If he spends as he hopes, Trump will add the second-highest dollar amount in history. More important, he will add almost as much in his first term as Obama did in two terms.

  • FY 2021 - $1.119 trillion.
  • FY 2020 - $1,198 trillion.
  • FY 2019 - $1.225 trillion.
  • FY 2018 - $1.233 trillion.
Things appear to just be going peachy right? Obama had to deal with one of the worst depressions the USA has experienced thanks to Bush and his administration.

Thanks Obama.

3 days after Trump took office:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/us/politics/budget-deficit-trump.html?mtrref=www.google.com

Federal Debt Projected to Grow by Nearly $10 Trillion Over Next Decade

So you're saying Trump is cutting $1.8T from what Obama projected? Seems like a start.
 
Thanks Obama.

3 days after Trump took office:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/us/politics/budget-deficit-trump.html?mtrref=www.google.com

Federal Debt Projected to Grow by Nearly $10 Trillion Over Next Decade

So you're saying Trump is cutting $1.8T from what Obama projected? Seems like a start.

Can you imagine how bad the economy would be if Trump had to take over with a country that was near collapse and the auto industry being all but dead? Trump got to take over an economy that had been moving in the right direction
 
Can you imagine how bad the economy would be if Trump had to take over with a country that was near collapse and the auto industry being all but dead? Trump got to take over an economy that had been moving in the right direction

You mean like when Reagan took office?

Elon Musk saved the auto industry, not anyone else.
 
Can you imagine how bad the economy would be if Trump had to take over with a country that was near collapse and the auto industry being all but dead? Trump got to take over an economy that had been moving in the right direction

We'd be in the worst depression in our history.
 
Denial is not a river in Egypt. Hell, Musk doesn't even like trump as the president.

You deflect when presented with the truth refuting your misstatements. What does Musk liking Trump have to do with anything other than your deflection? It is you who are denying the facts.

Obama's "recovery" was one of the worst in US history. Weak GDP growth, millions leaving the work force, unable to find work. Massive increases in reliance on food stamps, and even the stock market was weakly above it's pre-crash highs by the time Trump took over.
 
You deflect when presented with the truth refuting your misstatements. What does Musk liking Trump have to do with anything other than your deflection? It is you who are denying the facts.

Obama's "recovery" was one of the worst in US history. Weak GDP growth, millions leaving the work force, unable to find work. Massive increases in reliance on food stamps, and even the stock market was weakly above it's pre-crash highs by the time Trump took over.

Obama was recovering from the worst recession in our history and one that was on the brink of becoming the greatest depression in our history.
 
Obama was recovering from the worst recession in our history and one that was on the brink of becoming the greatest depression in our history.

"worst recession in our history" is not true. Things were WORSE when Reagan first took office. Much worse.

Hundreds of banks and S&Ls actually collapsed during the Reagan and GHW Bush terms, too. Reagan bailed out the auto industry, back then, too. And Social Security.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-reasons-behind-the-obama-non-recovery-1474412963

The Reasons Behind the Obama Non-Recovery
It wasn’t the severity of the Great Recession that caused the weak recovery, but government policies.


The Obama administration and some economists argue that the recovery since the Great Recession ended in 2009 has been unusually weak because of the recession’s severity and the fact that it was accompanied by a major financial crisis. Yet in a recent study of economic downturns in the U.S. and elsewhere since 1870, economist Tao Jin and I found that historically the opposite has been true. Empirically, the growth rate during a recovery relates positively to the magnitude of decline during the downturn.

In our paper, “Rare Events and Long-Run Risks,” we examined macroeconomic disasters in 42 countries, featuring 185 contractions in GDP per capita of 10% or more. These contractions are dominated by wartime devastation such as World War I (1914-18) and World War II (1939-45) and financial crises such as the Great Depression of the 1930s. Many are global events, some are for individual or a few countries.

On average, during a recovery, an economy recoups about half the GDP lost during the downturn. The recovery is typically quick, with an average duration around two years. For example, a 4% decline in per capita GDP during a contraction predicts subsequent recovery of 2%, implying 1% per year higher growth than normal during the recovery. Hence, the growth rate of U.S. per capita GDP from 2009 to 2011 should have been around 3% per year, rather than the 1.5% that materialized.

Arguing that the recovery has been weak because the downturn was severe or coincided with a major financial crisis conflicts with the evidence, which shows that a larger decline predicts a stronger recovery. Moreover, many of the biggest downturns featured financial crises. For example, the U.S. per capita GDP growth rate from 1933-40 was 6.5% per year, the highest of any peacetime interval of several years, despite the 1937 recession. This strong recovery followed the cumulative decline in the level of per capita GDP by around 29% from 1929-33 during the Great Depression.
 
The partisan divorce court we call the GOP and Democratic party have wasted decades selling out to lobbyists and selfish concerns...not worked for the population as much as for special interests....now you have to have a gazillion dollars behind you to even run for office and be heard....Obama inherited a mess...Reagan inherited a mess...Trump is a mess....same old play, different cast...congress and the white house have had lines in the sand for way too long..Trump has taken it to new lows with lines around everything from football to our neighbors
 
"worst recession in our history" is not true. Things were WORSE when Reagan first took office. Much worse.

Hundreds of banks and S&Ls actually collapsed during the Reagan and GHW Bush terms, too. Reagan bailed out the auto industry, back then, too. And Social Security.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-reasons-behind-the-obama-non-recovery-1474412963

The Reasons Behind the Obama Non-Recovery
It wasn’t the severity of the Great Recession that caused the weak recovery, but government policies.


The Obama administration and some economists argue that the recovery since the Great Recession ended in 2009 has been unusually weak because of the recession’s severity and the fact that it was accompanied by a major financial crisis. Yet in a recent study of economic downturns in the U.S. and elsewhere since 1870, economist Tao Jin and I found that historically the opposite has been true. Empirically, the growth rate during a recovery relates positively to the magnitude of decline during the downturn.

In our paper, “Rare Events and Long-Run Risks,” we examined macroeconomic disasters in 42 countries, featuring 185 contractions in GDP per capita of 10% or more. These contractions are dominated by wartime devastation such as World War I (1914-18) and World War II (1939-45) and financial crises such as the Great Depression of the 1930s. Many are global events, some are for individual or a few countries.

On average, during a recovery, an economy recoups about half the GDP lost during the downturn. The recovery is typically quick, with an average duration around two years. For example, a 4% decline in per capita GDP during a contraction predicts subsequent recovery of 2%, implying 1% per year higher growth than normal during the recovery. Hence, the growth rate of U.S. per capita GDP from 2009 to 2011 should have been around 3% per year, rather than the 1.5% that materialized.

Arguing that the recovery has been weak because the downturn was severe or coincided with a major financial crisis conflicts with the evidence, which shows that a larger decline predicts a stronger recovery. Moreover, many of the biggest downturns featured financial crises. For example, the U.S. per capita GDP growth rate from 1933-40 was 6.5% per year, the highest of any peacetime interval of several years, despite the 1937 recession. This strong recovery followed the cumulative decline in the level of per capita GDP by around 29% from 1929-33 during the Great Depression.

I've only got time to respond to one of your assertions.

Most economists say we were on the brink of the worst depression in our history. That includes the Bush administration and the Chairman of the Fed. I'm going to have to side with them.
 
I've only got time to respond to one of your assertions.

Most economists say we were on the brink of the worst depression in our history. That includes the Bush administration and the Chairman of the Fed. I'm going to have to side with them.

Most pro Obama economists, you mean.

They were wrong, the results proved so. SCHOLARLY Analysis of fact disproves the claim.

Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, led the charge. "Never let a good crisis go to waste," he said. It was an excuse to massively spend money on what turned out to be worthless stuff. Unless you were a bank, then you got shit piles of taxpayer money to buy other banks with. Or an auto workers union member, because Obama shafted the people who poured their life savings into the company stock and gave GM to his constituency (the unions). It was a terrible abuse of government and power.

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman was cheerleading the massive borrowing and spending, only because the interest rates were cheap. Only an idiot would listen to that guy. Seriously. The cost of borrowing isn't fixed. Interest rates have already gone up on the massive debt the previous administration ran up.
 
Last edited:
Most pro Obama economists, you mean.

They were wrong, the results proved so. Analysis of fact disproves the claim.

Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, led the charge. "Never let a good crisis go to waste," he said. It was an excuse to massively spend money on what turned out to be worthless stuff. Unless you were a bank, then you got shit piles of taxpayer money to buy other banks with. Or an auto workers union member, because Obama shafted the people who poured their life savings into the company stock and gave GM to his constituency (the unions). It was a terrible abuse of government and power.

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman was cheerleading the massive borrowing and spending, only because the interest rates were cheap. Only an idiot would listen to that guy. Seriously. The cost of borrowing isn't fixed. Interest rates have already gone up on the massive debt the previous administration ran up.

I guess you're calling the Nobel prize committee a bunch of idiots.

And it's not just Obama supporters that thought we were in deep trouble. I refer you to the Frontline expose on the subject.

And what about Bernanke and the Bush Administration?
 
Last edited:
You deflect when presented with the truth refuting your misstatements. What does Musk liking Trump have to do with anything other than your deflection? It is you who are denying the facts.

Obama's "recovery" was one of the worst in US history. Weak GDP growth, millions leaving the work force, unable to find work. Massive increases in reliance on food stamps, and even the stock market was weakly above it's pre-crash highs by the time Trump took over.

Are you aware that Trump spreads herpes to babies?

http://empirenews.net/woman-claims-donald-trump-gave-her-baby-herpes-during-meet-and-greet/
 
I guess you're calling the Nobel prize committee a bunch of idiots.

They gave Obama one, and Yassar Arafat, too. So yeah, they are a bunch of idiots. Or politically motivated.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/05/news/economy/us-recovery-slowest-since-wwii/index.html

Yes, this is the slowest U.S. recovery since WWII

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsin...ma-and-the-dems-dismal-recovery/#50c59926cb0e
Obama And The Dem's Dismal Recovery

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/econ...arack-obamas-real-economic-record-isnt-pretty
Debunking Obama's Fiscal Record
Some see Trump's predecessor as having returned fiscal discipline to Washington. They're wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/mar/16/peter-roskam/rep-roskam-gdp-growth-obama/
Roskam says Obama admin the first to never top 3% in annual GDP growth

We rate Roskam’s claim Mostly True.
 
They gave Obama one, and Yassar Arafat, too. So yeah, they are a bunch of idiots. Or politically motivated.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/05/news/economy/us-recovery-slowest-since-wwii/index.html

Yes, this is the slowest U.S. recovery since WWII

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsin...ma-and-the-dems-dismal-recovery/#50c59926cb0e
Obama And The Dem's Dismal Recovery

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/econ...arack-obamas-real-economic-record-isnt-pretty
Debunking Obama's Fiscal Record
Some see Trump's predecessor as having returned fiscal discipline to Washington. They're wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/mar/16/peter-roskam/rep-roskam-gdp-growth-obama/
Roskam says Obama admin the first to never top 3% in annual GDP growth

We rate Roskam’s claim Mostly True.

Your response tells me all I need to know.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top