ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
bahbah cannot be happy with that development
And the idea that relaxing regulation on business is somehow a left-of-center policy, and not the equivalent of crack cocaine to the right-wing, is pure post-truth noise
Meet the far-right extremist plotting Trump's second term.
Anti-racism protections - for white people.
Stephen Miller plans to overhaul the Justice Department
and build a "white nationalist America" if Trump is re-elected.
The deficit shrunk from Obama's first year as president to his last year. You can't just pretend the opposite when these numbers are freely available:
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/deficit-...
FY 2016: $585 billion
FY 2015: $442 billion
FY 2014: $485 billion
FY 2013: $680 billion
FY 2012: $1.077 trillion
FY 2011: $1.300 trillion
FY 2010: $1.5 trillion.
FY 2009: $1.16 trillion.
Oh I see what your saying he reduced the yearly deficit number but still increasing the overall deficit
So if Trump ran up a 7 trillion deficit and Biden only accumulates 5 billion you want to pay him on the back and say he reduced the deficit
Oh I see what your saying he reduced the yearly deficit number but still increasing the overall deficit
So if Trump ran up a 7 trillion deficit and Biden only accumulates 5 billion you want to pay him on the back and say he reduced the deficit
It's an example of trying to turn a huge ship. For a long time it's just slowing down. Also you can reduce the debt as a part of a proportion of GDP os some similar metric (which is what matters) while running a deficit.
What make it hard to fathom is that meaures that reduce the deficit short term may not be deficit reducing measures in the longer term. Qualitative judgments are required.
Presidents negotiate and sign budgets, and they help direct other economically impactful bills. If Republicans while campaigning for president want to claim that they're fiscally responsible, shouldn't there be some evidence it's actually true while they govern?
Maybe you missed the part where I said that recently the GOP moved to the very far left on the issue.
"Normal" republicans left on the issue are those in congress saying "no deal on any spending if we don't balance the budget" and they are considered crazies by everyone else.
That 's how dramatically to the left a good portion of GOP and all democrats moved.
Remember the topic was lolwat claiming the literal opposite, while it's objectively true that in one of the most important, and defining policy landscape, that of deficits, democrats moved dramatically to the left and a good portion of GOP followed as well.
Basic 101 macro models, neo Keynesians one, would tell you that under 4% unemployment and over 2% of inflation it's truly exceptional, incredible, insane, to run a deficit.
Against any and all macro models, there is no theory justifying it at all. Against all "science" if you will.
It should really be about how much surplus to run.
Even in a model where you want debt as a percentage of GDP stable over the medium term, over an economic cycle, instead of a balanced budget over the cycle, the average deficit should be equal to NGDP growth (to keep debt at 100%).
But with inflation over target and unemployment near the historical minimum, this still means you have to run a far better than NGDP growth deficit (far lower).
A reasonable NGDP growth assumption is 4% btw, with 2% inflation target.
And it's already a generous one: the EU uses 3% (which is why 3% is the deficit cap under Maastricht).
That would mean 4% as the average deficit, which means that if in some years you want to run 8-10 (including any and all emergency of course, that's the idea: Including pandemics, great recessions, wars), you have to run 0 or a surplus when things are good.
So a moderate, technocratic centrist would be someone asking for no deficit or a small surplus today, with a combination of spending cuts and extra taxes.
A normal right-wing person would be someone asking for huge surpluses today because of the insane recent deficits, with a radical cut in spending.
A normal left wing person would be someone asking for a balanced budget but without spending cuts, just tax increases.
Instead we have ample super majorities on congress of actual radical leftists disregarding the issue
With "radical leftists" I am not using words randomly: just take all people in all western parliaments from 1946 to today historically and distribute them across an axis wrt deficit policies they would advocate for.
We are talking the 5-10% most extreme pro deficit people (compared to historical political western preferences) are a supermajority in American congress today.
That's how far to the left both parties have moved.
And we have to hear leftists whining about the opposite? Your model of the world is governing, maybe if you dislike the outcome it should be time to reassess your model.
Dude, show me on the doll where the leftist touched you.
Man why can't you admit that policy proposals who only people on the very left of the democratic party campaigned for 30 years ago, are now mainstream policy stances of both parties?
Why don't you admit the same is true for homosexuality?
Why is it so hard for people on the left to admit they won in several topic more than they could ever have dreamed of? Because you need the status of Perma-victim of society to exist as a political movement?
You're so obsessed with this you have failed to notice that I'm not "on the left" by any meaningful definition of that term. Nor am I particularly "on the right". In fact, I try and avoid being any sort of "-ist". Maybe onanist.
My continuously dunking on most of the right wingers here is purely a function of the fact that right wingers seem to be pretty dumb and to say stupid things.
You're so obsessed with this you have failed to notice that I'm not "on the left" by any meaningful definition of that term. Nor am I particularly "on the right". In fact, I try and avoid being any sort of "-ist". Maybe onanist.
Do you think it should be absolutely necessary to run a balanced budget today in the USA?
Hey baham which president with which policy u believe created the median housing prices bubble from 320k in early 2020 to 480k end of 2022 ?
A rise in price of 33% in 2 years ?
I'm not going to blame it all of Millard Filmore's 1853 open trade policy with Japan.... but it certainly didn't help!
Is there any country where you would vote a current right-wing party/coalition over a current leftwing party/coalition if you were a citizen of that country?
I have voted conservative in the UK in the past if it helps. Could never vote for a clown like Johnson though, so I abstained that time. The right lost me at Brexit, which I consider to be a thoroughly populist and anti-intellectual movement at its core.
Oh I see what your saying he reduced the yearly deficit number but still increasing the overall deficit
So if Trump ran up a 7 trillion deficit and Biden only accumulates 5 billion you want to pay him on the back and say he reduced the deficit
7000B to 5B? You don't think that would be noteworthy?
I have voted conservative in the UK in the past if it helps. Could never vote for a clown like Johnson though, so I abstained that time. The right lost me at Brexit, which I consider to be a thoroughly populist and anti-intellectual movement at its core.
The Magtards would likely call Boris a leftist, but would give him a chance because of his silly hair and overall buffoonery.
Hey baham which president with which policy u believe created the median housing prices bubble from 320k in early 2020 to 480k end of 2022 ?
A rise in price of 33% in 2 years ?
Just because the price of something increases by 33% over 2 years does not make it bubble. If that was the case you could say that some items in our grocery stores are in a bubble. The same could be said about all of restaurant/fast food menu items as well.
I would also argue that the president isn’t the only person in the country who has political power. The reason we saw homes, baseball cards, the stock market and so many other asset classes go up in value over that time frame is because we printed money at 18% a year (the normal rate we print money is 6%) for the 2 years following Covid (increased the supply of money) and we shut down parts of the economy and encouraged people not to work via larger money payments from taxpayer funds. I think all 3 of these were massive mistakes, but there wasn’t only one person who supported these 3 mistakes - yes they were all more heavily supported by dems but they weren’t alone unfortunately.
Name me one policy u think it takes 10 to 15 years to take effect beside the hilarious one u believe about Clinton and the housing crisis ?
U must easily have couples others right , since in your mind it makes perfect sense ?
Tax cuts or increases have major long-term effects that aren’t fully felt for decades.
If I’m allowed to look at non-US policies the best example of this phenomenon I believe is China’s one child policy. That is going to effect chinas economy for over 50 years after it started and we won’t know how bad that policy was for at least 50 years.
I think dems are the most to blame for inflation that we saw post Covid since they were the main drivers of printing extra money, closing the economy and paying people not to work, but I think some repubs deserve some blame as well because they folded to the pressure applied by dems to give out free money, etc.
I don’t think we speak about the same thing .
Baham specify a policy started 13 years ago and created out of the blue the biggest financial crisis since the 1930 ….
Clearly it doesn’t to work like that , there was major factors involve that created that crisis , NINJA loans are one of them and have nothing to do with Clinton at all .
Every tax cut , monetary policy , fiscal policies have immediate effect on the economy lagging up to 2-3 years
If bush passed a law that said it is legal to murder someone who is in a car that is driving without the assistance of a human because that is witchcraft. There would be 0 effect from this law during bush’s term as president. However, more than a decade later we would likely see a small uptick in murders when autonomous cars became a thing. In this case do you think we should blame bush or Biden for people being able to legally murder people in autonomous cars?
Can we declare Reaganomics a failure yet? It’s sort of classic conservatism to say we can’t declare Trump a failure because it’s too soon, and we can’t declare Reagan a failure for some reason we’re just going to make up on the spot now. But clearly Obama and Biden policies have failed!
This has been a popular conservative talking point but like most narratives it has no basis in reality. First, the housing bubble was caused by financial institutions voluntarily lending to anyone with a pulse, not from compulsory lending from Clinton's changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. People weren't being lent money for their second, third, fourth, etc.. properties from compulsory lending.
The paper from MIT put the conservative t
Their argument that the middle class and the rich defaulted on a lot of loans isn’t proof that giving loans to someone they banks otherwise would have given a loan didn’t inflate the price of homes is nonsense. It sounds like they are even admitting that the law widened the base of people who they could now lend money to - which increased the demand for loans and we all know that when you increase the demand for something either supply and/or price also needs to go up.
When you increase the demand for a product and you bring on new buyers of that product it isn’t only the new buyers who would get hurt when a bubble pops. The middle and upper class saw that poor people were now going to be given access to loans to buy houses and they knew housing prices were going to go up because of this so they thought it was a great opportunity to buy as an investment - in the end they also got burned by the bubble too.
