Presidential election, 2016

[pbrower2a]

(11-27-2016, 12:05 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 03:41 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 01:56 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 06:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Louise XIV and Bush 43 went past moderation to ruinous.  Trump's campaign rhetoric suggested he was going to go past Bush 43.  The way Trump is disregarding his campaign rhetoric, though, I don't know yet how far he is really willing to take the debt.

Trump doesn't have any choice about taking the debt past Bush since it has already been doubled by Obama.

I notice you left out that part, though.  I guess you like demagogues as long as they're on your side.

Woah there! Trump is proposing unnecessary and wasteful spending and huge and useless tax cuts. In no way is this reckless policy something that is not a choice, and in no way does it relate to anything that happened under Obama.

What Obama spent, however, was directly related to the outcome of Bush 43's policies, namely the great recession and the stimulus which was the only thing that got us out of it, or could have gotten us out of it.

The stimulus spending that Obama actually did was as wasteful and counterproductive as anything Trump might be proposing.  Obama managed to delay the recovery by his entire two terms, keeping our growth rate well below trend.

But whatever you think of Obama's spending, it clearly took us beyond the Bush deficit, and clearly was not Trump's doing.  For Bob's statement to be correct, you'd have to believe that Trump could magically roll back all of Obama's deficit spending, returning the deficit to where it was at the end of the Bush administration, when it stood at half it's current level.  That's clearly ridiculous.

The economic growth rate under Obama was higher than the stated rate under Dubya. The problem with the 'growth' under Dubya was that much of it was fecal investment in real estate that would quickly become worthless.

Friedrich Hayek convinces me on this: a financial bubble is itself the real disaster as potential investment is drawn  away from activities that could do real good (plant and equipment that allows productivity and job creation) into housing that proves unmarketable. It's the bad investment, and not the realization that the investment is bad, that does the real harm. The panic is simply the realization of the reality.

But there is no quick catch-up. A few years of illusory growth simply disappear from the economic charts, and we start about where the bubble begins.

[The Wonkette]

(11-26-2016, 06:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 03:23 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The dude comes across as being highly hypocritical, very self centered and very arrogant. You'd think he had never witnessed a standing king being over thrown by peasants and then tried and convicted in public court of law and sentenced to death and then publicly executed. I don't think he fully grasped the consequences as they related to him and his royal legacy. How does someone respond to a king warning that his debts and economic policies were going to ruin the country? It sounds like he was disconnected and a bit crazy to me.

Louise XIV was a piece of work for sure.  As I understand it, he cared for his time in office and cared not a whit for his legacy.  He fought a lot of wars and ran an opulent court with an extravagance few courts could match, and built up a debt that took it all down after he was safely dead.  Still, his legacy is positive in some ways.  He built a reputation with his wars and his opulence that has stuck in spite of the disasters that followed.  Some still remember him as one of the great kings of old Europe.

You can get away with debt in moderation.  The tricky part is distinguishing between debt in moderation and ruinous debt.  Using debt to kick a stale economy alive is a modern common practice.  There is a disagreement on how the debt should be used, whether the stimulus should go to Main Street or Easy Street, but stimulus spending is practiced by both parties.

Louise XIV and Bush 43 went past moderation to ruinous.  Trump's campaign rhetoric suggested he was going to go past Bush 43.  The way Trump is disregarding his campaign rhetoric, though, I don't know yet how far he is really willing to take the debt.

About Louis XIV, didn't he die in 1713, a full 76 years prior to the French Revolution?  That's almost an entire saeculum.

[pbrower2a]

It was Louis XIV, of course. Louis XIV lived to a very old age, outliving the son who would have been his heir, and died of natural causes.

[The Wonkette]

(11-27-2016, 04:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It was Louis XIV, of course. Louis XIV lived to a very old age, outliving the son who would have been his heir, and died of natural causes.

Did some surfing on Wikipedia. Louis XIV didn't live to be that old by modern standards, dying in his mid-70s. However, he was succeeded not by his son, who died in middle-age, or his grandson, who died of smallpox while in his late 20s, but of his great-grandson, aged 2, who became Louis XV. The younger Louis' mismanagement is believed to have contributed to the French Revolution, which broke out 15 years after his death.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-27-2016, 08:00 AM)pbrower2 Wrote: [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue#cite_note-LarsonDefn-4][/url]
 That sounds familiar. I expect that as unpleasant as it is for me to hear or see Donald Trump already, it will only get worse. Obama is getting boring, but at least he doesn't intrude on every aspect of life. I wonder whether life will shut down so that we can hear the speeches of the Great and Glorious Leader. After all, his pronouncements are more profound than Turandot or the Seventh Symphony of Anton Bruckner, works that only un-American people can appreciate. Think at the level of the writing of the National Inquirer if you want to be a real member of the American People.

No. I am a rootless cosmopolitan in contrast to you, Classic X'er. I outgrew the mass low culture when I was a teenager. To be sure, mass culture (think of Mark Twain, Big Band music, George Gershwin, ragtime, the three great ballets associated with Tchaikovsky, maybe some animated films that anyone can watch and enjoy... Shakespeare and Mozart, of course, in their times) can have an omnibus appeal which suggests genuine mastery in achievement. I don't have a problem with folk culture; it has its validity through its purity. If some American wants to write some structured music with some widespread appeal, then maybe he might want to start by taking a good listening to some old-fashioned fiddling and banjo playing so that his works can have some melodic coherence and some national character. Bach's Art of Fugue and Beethoven's late quartets are incredibly rich, but they are decidedly not for everyone.

I may not be an intellectual (I only play one on the Web). That play looks as if it could become very dangerous very fast in America, where survival may soon depend on how satisfied one can be with a 'dumb' culture. I'm guessing that Donald Trump's America will be one in which one works and is expected to accept either religion or mass low culture (most people will be far poorer, so forget consumerism as America rushes headlong into the social realities of the Gilded Age; forget anything 'intellectual, for thought will be understood as the highest form of treachery).  I expect to thoroughly hate life in Trump's America. I am not sure that I can survive it. I am beginning to regret that I took care of myself as I did instead of chain-smoking, drinking myself into cirrhosis, or having reckless sex.

All that I expect to live for during the Trump Presidency is resisting it by participating in demonstrations and protests... and outlasting it. Maybe I will have some wisdom to impart. Education? it's back to the liberal arts, and expand it to at least K-14 as a norm so that youth can learn how to judge what is offered as information. We need to ensure that those who graduate from college and become leaders and creators have some values that allow one to make humane choices instead of thinking of sex, bureaucratic power, and material indulgence. We need to recognize that if one is alienated from the detritus of mas low culture that a high culture (no, not LSD!) has much to offer. Politics? Shore up the existing Constitution to remove the seams that allow ruthless people to consolidate dictatorial power or replace it with something still workable. Economics? Probably tax the super-rich heavily to support an economy in which people can work and still live comfortably (volunteering, creative activity not for swift gain, imparting culture to youth even if one is not a formal teacher) without having an obvious employer. If we are stuck with robotic production that cuts into the need for a paid workforce, then maybe those who profit from the robot workforce can share the bounties with us -- let they be unable to sell what those robots produce to people too destitute to buy the stuff.

We cannot put the technological genie back in the lamp. We will be unable to go back to the electronics of even twenty years ago. We cannot undo the wealth of information (and disinformation) on the Internet. We simply are handling it badly, and Donald Trump is a symptom of people who can fall for anything in a culture that offers everything and no means of sorting it out.

You're a rootless wannabe cosmopolitan stuck some where in rural America. I'm a rooted suburbanite (I have no desire to live anywhere else) who is a good old country boy at heart. I love being in the outdoors. I love to hunt and fish. I like and I'm able to relate to most of the regular country folks. I'm not one to impose or bother or interrupt someone's life. So, I not the one who knocks on a farmers door to ask if we can hunt on their land. However, I'm the one who the farmer ends of talking to and getting to know and makes his decision on whether or not he/she allows us to hunt his/her land. Values, understanding the values people who own land that you'd like an opportunity to hunt. The farmer didn't see a cosmopolitan decked out in fancy hunting clothes, a city slicker attitude, who has soft hands who wasn't all that interested in listening to him/her or their rules who didn't seem to value or appreciate anything they owned. The farmer saw a man whose clothes were obviously worn who didn't have a city slicker attitude, who had an attitude more like them, whose hands were a bit rough, who listened to them with respect, who'd ask questions relating to the rules associated with the use of their property who showed interest in them and an appreciation for their land and for them as people as well. Could you learn a valuable thing or two from me ? Probably. Bob doesn't mean all that much to me. Bob's academic degree doesn't mean that much to me. Bob's negative view and opinions of me doesn't mean that much to me. I'm not here to cozy up and snuggle with Bob to gain his support or friendship. I'm not here to impress people like yourself or Bob with uppity liberal talk and uppity liberal values associated with uppity liberal who live in blue bubbles. Intellectual play grounds don't accomplish very much but interesting to screw around in while nothing important is needed to be done.

[Eric the Green]

The outdoor life is wonderful. I'm not so much of an outdoor person, but I enjoy it when I get the chance. I respect farmers. Asking permission to use their land is respectful. I know some of us "hippies" didn't always respect private property. It was an attitude that seemed right at the time. It wouldn't fit too well for most of us nowadays, most-likely. Respecting country people is not hard for us. Outdoor, farm and country life is cool, and it feeds the people. Our disagreement with you is not about that. It's how you're voting, and why, that concerns many of us.

I don't see why being an outdoorsman or a farmer means you have to disrespect city people or the value of intellect. These days, it's the intellectuals who become the techies that boost the economy. And there's no need for country people to disrespect the intellectual life in general, or the quest for deeper understanding of life and society.

My philosophy teacher once told me that a true human being or a "real man" is the one who can examine his or her life. A famous philosopher once said, the unexamined life is not worth living. Nothing that is human, is alien to me; said another famous philosopher. These truths hold whether you live in a city or the country. People everywhere can lead authentic lives and seek understanding.

You guys might not like it that we are interested in the politics of protecting the environment, although we don't live off of it. Folks like us, however, don't understand why if you like being in the outdoors, you don't want to see the outdoors preserved.

[Eric the Green]

(11-27-2016, 12:05 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 03:41 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 01:56 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 06:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Louise XIV and Bush 43 went past moderation to ruinous.  Trump's campaign rhetoric suggested he was going to go past Bush 43.  The way Trump is disregarding his campaign rhetoric, though, I don't know yet how far he is really willing to take the debt.

Trump doesn't have any choice about taking the debt past Bush since it has already been doubled by Obama.

I notice you left out that part, though.  I guess you like demagogues as long as they're on your side.

Woah there! Trump is proposing unnecessary and wasteful spending and huge and useless tax cuts. In no way is this reckless policy something that is not a choice, and in no way does it relate to anything that happened under Obama.

What Obama spent, however, was directly related to the outcome of Bush 43's policies, namely the great recession and the stimulus which was the only thing that got us out of it, or could have gotten us out of it.

The stimulus spending that Obama actually did was as wasteful and counterproductive as anything Trump might be proposing.  Obama managed to delay the recovery by his entire two terms, keeping our growth rate well below trend.

But whatever you think of Obama's spending, it clearly took us beyond the Bush deficit, and clearly was not Trump's doing.  For Bob's statement to be correct, you'd have to believe that Trump could magically roll back all of Obama's deficit spending, returning the deficit to where it was at the end of the Bush administration, when it stood at half it's current level.  That's clearly ridiculous.

The facts are quite otherwise. The economy began to recover just months after the stimulus was passed; then the recovery slowed after the Republican wins in 2010, which was followed by massive cuts to the stimulus and to local teaching and other government-paid work, which cancelled out the gains in employment in the private sector.

The deficit is almost down to the level at the end of Bush 43's administration.


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fede...chart.html

Did the deficit get reduced by 2/3 as Obama claims?

He used % of GDP instead of real dollars, and started from 2009 when the deficit ballooned because of the great recession, both because of his stimulus, and because of decreased revenue and increased relief.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...-two-thir/

This article says the deficit might grow somewhat because entitlements have not been "reformed." But the only reform needed is to raise taxes in some way, most-notably by raising the cap on the income taxed. That might at least ensure that more of the money paid into entitlements programs, are actually used for them.

But now the situation has changed. With Trump and the GOP in charge, higher taxes are off the table, and spending might increase substantially if the GOP passes his proposals.

[Warren Dew]

The discussion was about the debt, not the deficit.

However, it's to be noted that the highest deficit on your chart was in 2009, Obama's first year, due to his patronage, er, "stimulus" spending, and it went down mostly after the partial shutdown that the Tea Party folks forced.

[pbrower2a]

(11-27-2016, 09:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The discussion was about the debt, not the deficit.

However, it's to be noted that the highest deficit on your chart was in 2009, Obama's first year, due to his patronage, er, "stimulus" spending, and it went down mostly after the partial shutdown that the Tea Party folks forced.

Deficits mushroom when relief spending expands greatly and tax receipts shrink. Keynesian economics, the norm since the 1930s, recognize this reality as unavoidable.

[pbrower2a]

(11-27-2016, 03:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 01:50 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: 2. The Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans is in having control of the Presidency, both Houses of Congress, and the vast majority of State legislators at an inauspicious time for holding them -- the most dangerous time of a Crisis Era -- while being ill-prepared for a Crisis.  An economic downturn is always possible after a seven-hear recovery when the leadership casts off the leadership that  made it possible. A rise of demagogues in other countries ensures that the steady hand that one might associate with a Sarkozy or an Obama will no longer be the norm, which means that international relations will be much shakier. 

The Republican victory wasn't achieved by accepting staggering losses. You made a bad choice and underestimated my intelligence. Are you sure you want to continue mess with a heating and air guy who has no reservations or moral qualms about making a teacher like you look like an idiot who has never taught? Wise up!

You are extremely wise, I assume, about heating and cooling units, including their installation and maintenance. I am not sure that you are as brilliant at making a cogent argument. You make logical errors that would get bad marks in Freshman Composition. I see those often in your writing.

You have your political and cultural values and I have mine. Neither of us can prove ours. Like it or not, Marxists like Lukacs, Gramsci, and Marcuse have made some convincing arguments on issues of their day when the Marxist component is subdued. See Bertrand Russell (he is one of the easiest philosophers to read) to get an idea of someone with much the same assumptions as I have. No, I am not Bertrand Russell, but he has surely influenced me.

The ideological 'truth' that you have as the core of your political thinking can neither be proved or disproved. For most people their ideological biases come from upbringing and experiences, including the time in which they live, ethnicity, religion, class, educational level, and political environment. Just imagine how different one's idea of the optimum of social order is if one is Japanese or American, whether one grew up in a shtetl or a few yards away as an Ukrainian peasant (see Fiddler on the Roof  to get a good idea of the difference), or if one is a poor or rich Brazilian. Or for that matter, whether your parents neglected and abused you (Charles Manson) or gave you all the security possible in a warm and loving household (Martin Luther King). Charles Manson did have his cranky philosophy, one must admit.

By Pyrrhic victory  in the literal, military sense I mean a victory that allows the winner to achieve an objective only to have the cost so severe that the winner can never win again. Think of some desperate late offensives that the Nazis had in Belgium and Hungary that won back some territory but cost troops that Nazi Germany could not afford to expend at the stage.

In a less literal sense, a Pyrrhic victory is one that puts the winner in a position for a catastrophic series of events. In business it would be like winning the bidding war for a desired acquisition only to find that what one got has hidden toxic waste sites. The Republican Party could be in big trouble with Donald Trump as President, especially if the economy tanks on his watch or he inspires domestic discord. By a Pyrrhic victory I imply the situation in which the winner discovers too late that the prize is toxic.

Within four years the model of a good President will be Barack Obama, someone cautious, coachable, scandal-free, without conflicts of interest, able to keep quiet when he must, and who can generally make wise decisions. You know well how I assess Donald Trump. He is about as unlike Barack Obama as he can be. Ronald Reagan? Many people voting in 2020 will know him only from news footage, being born as late as 2002 -- after Reagan died.

[Eric the Green]

(11-27-2016, 09:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The discussion was about the debt, not the deficit.

However, it's to be noted that the highest deficit on your chart was in 2009, Obama's first year, due to his patronage, er, "stimulus" spending, and it went down mostly after the partial shutdown that the Tea Party folks forced.

Certainly, the Tea Party-demanded cuts and the sequestration cut the deficit, although Obama agreed to it and so had a hand in it. But if the stimulus was "patronage," it was that toward a lot of different folks to whom the Democratic Congress gave it, not just to people on welfare. And it did stimulate the economy. It worked.

You referred to the deficit and said at the end of Obama's term it was twice what it was at the end of Bush's; no it was about the same level.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-27-2016, 07:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The outdoor life is wonderful. I'm not so much of an outdoor person, but I enjoy it when I get the chance. I respect farmers. Asking permission to use their land is respectful. I know some of us "hippies" didn't always respect private property. It was an attitude that seemed right at the time. It wouldn't fit too well for most of us nowadays, most-likely. Respecting country people is not hard for us. Outdoor, farm and country life is cool, and it feeds the people. Our disagreement with you is not about that. It's how you're voting, and why, that concerns many of us.

I don't see why being an outdoorsman or a farmer means you have to disrespect city people or the value of intellect. These days, it's the intellectuals who become the techies that boost the economy. And there's no need for country people to disrespect the intellectual life in general, or the quest for deeper understanding of life and society.

My philosophy teacher once told me that a true human being or a "real man" is the one who can examine his or her life. A famous philosopher once said, the unexamined life is not worth living. Nothing that is human, is alien to me; said another famous philosopher. These truths hold whether you live in a city or the country. People everywhere can lead authentic lives and seek understanding.

You guys might not like it that we are interested in the politics of protecting the environment, although we don't live off of it. Folks like us, however, don't understand why if you like being in the outdoors, you don't want to see the outdoors preserved.

You don't understand because you don't seem to place as much value on those who work to provide for families by logging as you place on the spotted owls. We have the ability to preserve spotted owls and reintroduce them later on. We have the ability to remove old mature trees or certain types of trees. I'm seeing the outdoors being preserved, I hunt on public land and I'm supporting them being preserved through taxation paid to the state and federal levels and the license fees associated with hunting and fishing and the equipment involved as well. I pay a license fee for use of my boat. I pay a license fee for my ATV's. I pay license fees to hunt and fish or pay a fee to stay in camp grounds. A portion of my costs for outdoor gear go to the state via sales tax. Do you have a right to bitch at me or how I vote? It looks to me like I directly contribute more to the preservation and the enjoyment of the outdoors than you do? Keep in mind, unlike you, I actually pay taxes on what you may pocket for yourself down the road or contribute to blue non-profit person like yourself or another non-profit interest group aligned with your beliefs. I pay taxes on my business profits as well. Plus, I directly contribute to the local economies and the local people as well. I vote the way I do because I believe in America (or at least half to most of it) and I believe in other things that progressives view as stupid or as being below them or as being below their level of intellect or as being evil or bad and so on. I do value intellect. The problem is that I don't see very much intellect on the blue side these days. I see a stream of repeating of the same old blue intellect associated with the same old socialism, communism that's now associating themselves with other things like the environment.

[Eric the Green]

(11-28-2016, 12:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 07:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The outdoor life is wonderful. I'm not so much of an outdoor person, but I enjoy it when I get the chance. I respect farmers. Asking permission to use their land is respectful. I know some of us "hippies" didn't always respect private property. It was an attitude that seemed right at the time. It wouldn't fit too well for most of us nowadays, most-likely. Respecting country people is not hard for us. Outdoor, farm and country life is cool, and it feeds the people. Our disagreement with you is not about that. It's how you're voting, and why, that concerns many of us.

I don't see why being an outdoorsman or a farmer means you have to disrespect city people or the value of intellect. These days, it's the intellectuals who become the techies that boost the economy. And there's no need for country people to disrespect the intellectual life in general, or the quest for deeper understanding of life and society.

My philosophy teacher once told me that a true human being or a "real man" is the one who can examine his or her life. A famous philosopher once said, the unexamined life is not worth living. Nothing that is human, is alien to me; said another famous philosopher. These truths hold whether you live in a city or the country. People everywhere can lead authentic lives and seek understanding.

You guys might not like it that we are interested in the politics of protecting the environment, although we don't live off of it. Folks like us, however, don't understand why if you like being in the outdoors, you don't want to see the outdoors preserved.

You don't understand because you don't seem to place as much value on those who work to provide for families by logging as you place on the spotted owls. We have the ability to preserve spotted owls and reintroduce them later on. We have the ability to remove old mature trees or certain types of trees. I'm seeing the outdoors being preserved, I hunt on public land and I'm supporting them being preserved through taxation paid to the state and federal levels and the license fees associated with hunting and fishing and equipment involved. I pay a fee for use of my boat. I pay a fee for the use of my ATV. I pay license fees to hunt and fish. A portion of my costs for guns, ammo and gear go to the state via sales tax. Do you have a right to bitch about me? I probably directly contribute more to the preservation of outdoors than you do? Keep in mind, unlike you, I actually pay taxes on what you may pocket for yourself or contribute to a needy person like you or another interest group aligned with your beliefs. I vote the way I do because I believe in America and other things that progressives view as stupid or being below them or evil. I value intellect. The problem is that I don't see much intellect on the blue side these days. I see a stream of repeating same old blue intellect associated with age old socialism are now associating themselves with things like the environment.

You pay the fees, but do you agree with doing it? Do you support those fees you pay, or do you vote for candidates who promise to repeal them? That's what Trump and Ryan and the Republicans at all levels of government propose to do: repeal all those fees and taxes that you pay. Trump promises to destroy the outdoors you enjoy, by ignoring the science of climate change and the need it has discovered to change the kinds of energy we use (including what powers our home and office heating and cooling systems). Trump proposes to remove regulations, fees and taxes that are used to preserve the outdoors. Republicans in congress for many years now have opposed all the environmental measures that are proposed, while Democrats have supported them. These are the kinds of measures that protect the outdoors you enjoy. Without them, you would not have the regulations and fees you mention. Our air and water would not be protected, and protecting it must be on a national and worldwide basis, because the environment is interconnected. It does not respect state and national boundaries. That's what "socialism" to protect the environment as proposed by "blue intellectuals" amounts to, and nothing more.

If you sacrifice the outdoors you enjoy, and the small farms being swallowed up by "free market" enabled corporations staffed by immigrants, in order to voice your support for the self-reliance, trickle-down economics "all-American" slogans by voting Republican, then you are making a mistake. You are putting your unnecessary, unjustified, self-defeating and irrelevant resentment against people receiving government benefits above your desire to protect the land, air, oceans and wildlife that you and all of us depend on and enjoy. You typify the majority of the people in flyover country who are doing exactly the same thing.

We here in California and many in Blue America make exactly the opposite priority. Protecting the land, sea, air and wildlife is priority #1. Resentment against people receiving benefits is bottom of the list.

[Bob Butler 54]

Hmm.  Trump is now claiming to have won the popular vote, or he would have if not for voter fraud.

I'm used to politicians stretching truth during the campaign, though Trump seems to have taken it to new levels.  There has been a need for fact checkers.  As a president elect / president does he think he can govern through the same style of blatant lies he used during the campaign?  Can he be "leader of the free world" when he has utterly destroyed his credibility?

Autocratic governments from fascist to communist to Baathist tried to do it, but found it necessary to convert the media into propaganda organs to make it work.  Trump can't even control Faux.

[David Horn]

(11-27-2016, 09:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The discussion was about the debt, not the deficit.

However, it's to be noted that the highest deficit on your chart was in 2009, Obama's first year, due to his patronage, er, "stimulus" spending, and it went down mostly after the partial shutdown that the Tea Party folks forced.

Deficits come and go.  Most are necessary, due entirely to weak economic performance ... or used to be at least.  Now, we have a party that cuts taxes and runs deficits for ideological reasons.  When the tax cuts are mostly for the wealthy, the side benefit of demand stimulus is all but absent, so let's be honest about deficits, what they do and what they don't do. 

Keynes had a degree of insight that we ignore at our own peril.  Like Darwin, his vision was incomplete, but the basic structure has worked as designed.  Choosing to ignore known success in the hope of creating an alternative success that meets your ideological standard is only deemed wise if it works.  Supply side policies, and phlegmatic displays of concern about debt, have not yielded anything of value ... nothing!  Keynes hit it on the nose.  There is no value to economic policies that ignore the storm but celebrate a long delayed calm years in the future after the crisis has burned itself out.  Yes, demand will return on its own, because eventually things need to be replaced.  That's not policy.  It's futility.

So Obama's stimulus was too small and, post 2010, largely redirected toward preferred GOP tax cuts.  We are now in our 8th, soon to be 9th, year of recovery, and the economy is still anemic.  The direct blame goes to the GOP House majority, with the Senate majority and Obama getting dishonorable mention.  But let's not laud the success of the obstructionists.  They are the problem.

[Odin]

(11-27-2016, 06:37 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You're a rootless wannabe cosmopolitan stuck some where in rural America. I'm a rooted suburbanite (I have no desire to live anywhere else) who is a good old country boy at heart. I love being in the outdoors. I love to hunt and fish. I like and I'm able to relate to most of the regular country folks. I'm not one to impose or bother or interrupt someone's life. So, I not the one who knocks on a farmers door to ask if we can hunt on their land. However, I'm the one who the farmer ends of talking to and getting to know and makes his decision on whether or not he/she allows us to hunt his/her land. Values, understanding the values people who own land that you'd like an opportunity to hunt. The farmer didn't see a cosmopolitan decked out in fancy hunting clothes, a city slicker attitude, who has soft hands who wasn't all that interested in listening to him/her or their rules who didn't seem to value or appreciate anything they owned. The farmer saw a man whose clothes were obviously worn who didn't have a city slicker attitude, who had an attitude more like them, whose hands were a bit rough, who listened to them with respect, who'd ask questions relating to the rules associated with the use of their property who showed interest in them and an appreciation for their land and for them as people as well. Could you learn a valuable thing or two from me ? Probably. Bob doesn't mean all that much to me. Bob's academic degree doesn't mean that much to me. Bob's negative view and opinions of me doesn't mean that much to me. I'm not here to cozy up and snuggle with Bob to gain his support or friendship. I'm not here to impress people like yourself or Bob with uppity liberal talk and uppity liberal values associated with uppity liberal who live in blue bubbles. Intellectual play grounds don't accomplish very much but interesting to screw around in while nothing important is needed to be done.

You're a business owner who has no god damned right to speak for us rural working class people. You are far closer to the fucking cake-eaters in Edina than to us.

PS: "rootless cosmopolitans" was a Nazi euphemism for "Jewish intellectuals". The Nazis preyed on the same anti-intellectual sentiments among small businessmen as you have.

[Odin]

(11-28-2016, 07:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmm.  Trump is now claiming to have won the popular vote, or he would have if not for voter fraud.

I'm used to politicians stretching truth during the campaign, though Trump seems to have taken it to new levels.  There has been a need for fact checkers.  As a president elect / president does he think he can govern through the same style of blatant lies he used during the campaign?  Can he be "leader of the free world" when he has utterly destroyed his credibility?

Autocratic governments from fascist to communist to Baathist tried to do it, but found it necessary to convert the media into propaganda organs to make it work.  Trump can't even control Faux.

I'm starting to become legitimately terrified of a Trump-lead Department of Justice giving a blind eye to Republican controlled states doing a shameless purge of black and Latino voters using lies like this as justification. They know demographic trends are against them so their strategy seems to be simply to make sure only white people vote.

[Warren Dew]

(11-28-2016, 12:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 09:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The discussion was about the debt, not the deficit.

However, it's to be noted that the highest deficit on your chart was in 2009, Obama's first year, due to his patronage, er, "stimulus" spending, and it went down mostly after the partial shutdown that the Tea Party folks forced.

Certainly, the Tea Party-demanded cuts and the sequestration cut the deficit, although Obama agreed to it and so had a hand in it. But if the stimulus was "patronage," it was that toward a lot of different folks to whom the Democratic Congress gave it, not just to people on welfare. And it did stimulate the economy. It worked.

I agree a lot of Obama's patronage definitely went to people not on welfare, in particular wealthy Obama donors such as the founders of Solyndra.

Far from stimulating the economy, that extra spending just delayed the recovery for far longer than would have happened had the recession been allowed to work itself out normally.  But I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree on that, since the left clings to bankrupt demand side Keynesian economics to justify increasing the size of government.

Quote:You referred to the deficit and said at the end of Obama's term it was twice what it was at the end of Bush's; no it was about the same level.

I referred to the debt, not the deficit.  They are two different things.  The deficit has been reduced substantially through sequestration, as you referred to, but it has still been adding to the debt all along, such that the debt is twice as high now as it was when Obama took office.

[Warren Dew]

(11-28-2016, 07:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmm.  Trump is now claiming to have won the popular vote, or he would have if not for voter fraud.

I'm used to politicians stretching truth during the campaign, though Trump seems to have taken it to new levels.  There has been a need for fact checkers.  As a president elect / president does he think he can govern through the same style of blatant lies he used during the campaign?  Can he be "leader of the free world" when he has utterly destroyed his credibility?

Trump never had any credibility with you the left,  anyway.  The right recognizes that states like California, with no enforceable requirement for proof of citizenship in the registration or voting process, likely have many illegal immigrants voting, possibly in the millions given the ruling Democratic party's interest in having illegal aliens vote.  The center also recognizes that Trump's claim here is far more credible than the claims on the left about mass hacking of voting machines by the Russian government.

[pbrower2a]

(11-28-2016, 09:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 07:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmm.  Trump is now claiming to have won the popular vote, or he would have if not for voter fraud.

I'm used to politicians stretching truth during the campaign, though Trump seems to have taken it to new levels.  There has been a need for fact checkers.  As a president elect / president does he think he can govern through the same style of blatant lies he used during the campaign?  Can he be "leader of the free world" when he has utterly destroyed his credibility?

Trump never had any credibility with you the left,  anyway.  The right recognizes that states like California, with no enforceable requirement for proof of citizenship in the registration or voting process, likely have many illegal immigrants voting, possibly in the millions given the ruling Democratic party's interest in having illegal aliens vote.  The center also recognizes that Trump's claim here is far more credible than the claims on the left about mass hacking of voting machines by the Russian government.

Sure, and for good reason. He introduced racism that would have put the George Wallace campaign of 1968 to shame. He has suggested that violence on behalf of his cause is a good thing. He has vilified intellectuals, creative people, and science. He has even promoted religious bigotry. He has shown admiration for murderous dictators as "strong leaders"; I could understand Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher as strong leaders who at least respected human rights, due process, and pluralism and not ... Saddam Hussein? This would be unacceptable in a left-wing campaign.

Donald Trump is a sociopath and a demagogue, and you expect me to trust him as president of the United States? I look forward to the next four years of American politics much as I would look forward to a prison term.

There isn't much of a center-right in America anymore, but I question whether you can speak for it.

All that I can say of Donald Trump's America is that we can all work more with no increase in pay (or even a pay cut to Make America Great Again -- if only for the Master Class. Life will be worse for most people than at any time since the Great Depression, and if we should have a reprise of the 1929-1932 meltdown, things will be worse than that. Much of what I see in Donald trump comes from his choices of extremists and fanatics for every significant position in the political order.

Who knows? Maybe he will appoint a Supreme Court "Justice" who believes that an occasional lynching will make America safer from crime.

...I'd like to know what his campaign was doing while connected to a server in Moscow.