-
1 photos
[QUOTE=Member#2041;2000036]I prefer to spend my communication time in venues where actual news, rather than Alt. Right propaganda holds sway. Josef Goebbels would be proud of the way some folks here have embraced the messaging coming out of the Trump administration.[/QUOTE]Right Back Atcha Peggy Sue!
-
[QUOTE=NattyBumpo;2000043]Right Back Atcha Peggy Sue![/QUOTE]But sadly, you seem to be most deeply under the sway of the Alt. Right media. To your credit, you seem well-intentioned, as opposed to others here that are poster children for the deplorables, but so long as you allow yourself to be misinformed, and continue to embrace rather than resist your own confirmation bias, you will not be acting in your own self-interest.
In any case, adios, amigos.
-
[QUOTE=Member#2041;2000051] deplorables, but so long as you allow yourself to be misinformed, and continue to embrace rather than resist your own confirmation bias, you will not be acting in your own self-interest.
.[/QUOTE]Deplorables. Wasn't that the term Crooked Hillary used when she lost the election? 2041, in that case I am proud to be part of "the deplorables". EVERYTHING you say about the Right can be equally said about yourself and the Left. The difference is WE WON and YOU can't handle it! Sore loser! Nevertheless, have fun in Mexico.
-
In the immortal words of Henry Clay, one of the greatest statesmen in the history of the USA, and the man whom Abraham Lincoln most admired in American public life:
"I'd rather be right than be President".
-
Ya, keep telling yourself that, 2041.
[QUOTE=Member#2041;2000089]In the immortal words of Henry Clay, one of the greatest statesmen in the history of the USA, and the man whom Abraham Lincoln most admired in American public life:
"I'd rather be right than be President".[/QUOTE].
-
[QUOTE=NattyBumpo;1999992]Wrong again! So let me enlighten you:
Volcker and the Reagan Legacy. by Brian Domitrovic, contributing editor Forbes Magazine.
"quoting the original Reagan biographer, Lou Cannon: "Reagan's greatest domestic accomplishment breaking the back of inflation that terrified the nation in the late 1970's was a product not of 'supply side' economics ballyhooed by conservatives, but of the drastic tightening of interest rates by Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. "[/QUOTE]Sorry, but the actual historical data roundly refutes what an avowed pro-Supply-Sider like Domitrovic says in Forbes Magazine regarding puff-piece biographies promoting Reagan / Supply-Side myths. Taming hyper-inflation had everything to do with Paul Volker in the Carter years, virtually nothing to do with Reagan or Reagan's Supply-Side/Trickle-Down failure. Except in only one way; Republican-style Supply-Side/Trickle-Down policy has had a consistent and perfect record of precipitating and triggering major U.S. economic downturns as it did under Reagan and one does not see hyper-inflation during times of serious economic downturn. Not in the midst of massive job losses, housing value and stock market crashes and the like. Instead, that is the time when we are hoping for signs of inflation (although not hyper-inflation) during the Democratic-style policy recovery because that is when we are certain the jobs creation trend is back on a firmly positive track.
Paul Volker:
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker[/URL]
[QUOTE]Chairman of the Federal Reserve
President Jimmy Carter nominated Paul Volcker to serve as chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on July 25, 1979., and was confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 1979, and took office on August 6, 1979. President Ronald Reagan renominated Volcker to a second term in 1983.[/QUOTE]Historical Chart of Fed Funds Rates:
[URL]http://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-chart[/URL]
Historical Chart of Inflation Rates:
[URL]http://www.macrotrends.net/1466/inflation-rates-100-year-historical-chart[/URL]
Volker began to raise Fed Funds rates dramatically in late 1979, soon after being appointed to the Fed Chair by Jimmy Carter. As you can see in those charts the rate of Inflation virtually MIRRORS those Fed Funds rate increases, also FALLING dramatically immediately afterwards, within 2-3 months. As always is the case with Fed activity, much of the reaction came about by Volker merely stating or suggesting his intentions to raise Fed Funds rates sooner rather than later. Which is what he did. No, it wasn't a straight line decline without a relatively minor uptick here and there along the way. Nothing ever is in the economy. We look for major inflection points that continue on as a clear and undeniable trend.
But the demonstrably dramatic decline of true hyper-inflation in the near immediate aftermath of Volker raising those rates on Carter's watch and as Carter fully expected him to do when he appointed him and almost a YEAR before Reagan would take the Oath of Office, puts a lie to the myth that either Reagn or Reagan's disastrously failed Supply-Side / Trickle-Down policies had anything whatever to do with that major decline inflection point that occurred during the Carter years, well before Reagan took office.
I realize Reagan ran for his second term in 1984 on the infamous "Morning in America...and ain't I GREAT?!" campaign ads that were essentially ALL about how "he" and his policies tamed hyper-inflation and all that junk. So his biographers and other Supply-Siders have to ignore the actual historical record/data in order to defend their wrong-headed position and perpetuate the myth. However, and unfortunately for them, the historical record/data simply does not support their contention and instead roundly refutes it.
According to a favorite Reagan quote (actually, him quoting John Adams):
"Facts are stubborn things. And whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. "
Oh, so true. If Ronnie only knew then (or could remember) what we all know now despite his religious followers working mightily for decades to spin it otherwise. LOL.
-
[QUOTE=NattyBumpo;1999992]I love it when Trump dishes on the corrupt dishonest press of which the majority have become nothing more than the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party. They deserve it! And of course it is your perogative not to accept my proposed wager. Actually I think you are being pretty smart in not making the bet. I wouldn't bet against lower taxes, less regulation and the future Trump economy either.[/QUOTE]Actually, I am all in favor of tax cuts and smart regulation, occasionally tweaked to suit the circumstances. It all depends on when and where the tax cuts go. One of the reasons I vote for Dems is because I like their tax cuts. Haven't got much use for Republican-style tax cuts, disproportionately large ones in the top margins at the expense of everyone else, since I am not a big fan of the inevitable Great Republican Depressions / Recessions, Stock Market and Housing Value Crashes that follow.
But major Dem tax cuts (and tax advantages) like the one proposed and signed into legislation by Jimmy Carter in 1978 that meant rank and file workers, not just the corporate elite, could invest a portion of their earned income in a 401K account tax deferred from every paycheck (while also reducing their payroll/income tax hit on the income) and watch it grow and compound untouched by taxes over years and years and into a healthy nest egg for retirement? I'm a big fan of that one. When Carter cut the Capital Gains Tax Rate from 39.9% to 28%? Yeah, I'm a big fan of that one, too. No president since has cut the Capital Gains Tax Rate as deeply as did Jimmy Carter.
Bill Clinton's massive tax cut on home equity gains at the sale of a primary residence as long as you have lived there for 2 of the previous 5 years? LOVE it. Single filers / home sellers get that first $250,000 of equity gain TAX FREE. Couples get the first $500,000 TAX FREE. Man, just those three brilliant Democratic Party tax cuts have helped make a comfortable retirement a reality for millions and millions of Americans, including me! LOL. Oh, and the big payroll tax cut Barack Obama put into the system in order to help pull us out of the recent Great Republican Recession? I was all for it. And it worked to do what it was meant to do.
But those idiotic Republican-style Supply-Side / Trickle-Down cuts where the top margins get a disproportionately higher tax cut than the the middle and lower margins on the assumption that those top margin folks won't just move that hot money into a bubble destined to burst and crash markets all over creation? Not a big fan of those. Oh, and the other Republican tax cut favorite where they dangle some 4% cut here or there as some great accomplishment when it turns out the country will wind up paying for it with a colossal economic crash that destroys years of stock market / investment savings and home equity? Yep, not a big fan of those either.
-
Obama President Ranking
I thought you all be interested. The worst President title will never be reached. This poll seems to be very legit:
News Chicago Inc.
Obama 12th best president, Lincoln first, Clinton 15th: Historians.
Just weeks after returning to civilian life, former president Barack Obama was rated the 12th best USA President, while Abraham Lincoln, another president who made his political bones in Illinois, retains the top position.
That's according to a poll of 91 historians rating presidential leadership conducted by C-SPAN ahead of Monday's President's Day holiday. They noted that Obama entered the top rankings for the first time, having not been rated during its last survey in 2009.
In 10 total categories of presidential characteristics, Obama, the former community organizer and Nobel Peace Prize winner came in at third for the category "Pursued Equal Justice for All," and seventh in "Moral Authority," but only at 39 for "Relations with Congress," and 24th in "International Relations. ".
One member of the polls' academic advisory team said he was impressed by Obama's 12th place finish, while another member thought he would have ranked higher. Obama came in behind such popular presidents as Ronald Reagan, who came in at ninth, but ahead of Bill Clinton, who ranked at 15.
Meanwhile Lincoln retained his first spot for the third time the poll was taken by C-SPAN since 2000.
-
[QUOTE=Revere;2000412]I thought you all be interested. The worst President title will never be reached. This poll seems to be very legit:
.......[/QUOTE]Wait until there are 45 names on the list.
-
It just amazes me the number of psychics of this thread! Do you do palm readings, too, Smoothy?
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2000324] when it turns out the country will wind up paying for it with a colossal economic crash that destroys years of stock market / investment savings and home equity [/QUOTE].
-
Has anyone read "objective" US media reports recently? Seems like the US media, even the venerated old names, have morphed into biased "spin factories" or propaganda machines.
By the way, Obama reportedly had a total annual budget of one billion US $ for PR (read propaganda). That's huge!
Just one man's musings.
OM.
-
(Quoted from the Philippines politics / economics thread but felt my reply is more relevant in this thread).
[QUOTE=Omega3;2009250]Might as well get used to it. For better or for worse, China's star is ascending, especially in Asia, and particularly in the Philippines.
Conversely, America's star is falling rapidly. America is imploding, thanks to the would-be principals of destabilization who seek personal financial gain and who have so successfully brainwashed so many good folk.
Like it or not, Trump is the USA President. Suck it in, and support Trump and support America. "United we stand, divided we fall. " Do not let prevail those vultures who seek only to gain personally by destabilizing the USA, who hope that Trump and the USA will collapse.
Similarly, here, Duterte is the Philippine president. According to surveys, 80% plus of the Filipino people support Duterte. However, here also are those vultures who seek only to gain personally by destabilizing the Philippines, who hope that Duterte and the Philippines will collapse.
I know that there are those who will agree with me, and there are those who will strongly disagree with me, but this is my own honest personal opinion and prayer.
Yours sincerely,
OM.[/QUOTE]Definitely disagree man.
First of all don't try and draw parallels and analogies between Trump and Duterte. To begin with, the majority of Americans disapprove of Trump given his loss in the popular vote. Additionally, his approval ratings have continued to drop since he took office (around 45% now).
[URL]https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/13/poll-trumps-approval-rating-dives-wiretap-claim-and-trumpcare/21880423/[/URL]
Second, why should we "suck it in and support Trump". We stand nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so. Every single thing he's done in office since inauguration day has been a disaster. Literally every single person in his cabinet is either completely unqualified, in bed with the Russians, or gets his rocks off on oil and gas. Then you have the unconstitutional travel ban, repealing of the Affordable Care Act which will stop millions of Americans from getting a decent / affordable healthcare plan, and then replacing it with the shittiest, least thought out replacement, because "who knew healthcare could be so complicated. " Then you have the joke of a press conference, and just when everyone thought he had gotten it out of his system and were thinking he could be presidential (speech to Congress) he drops the Obama bugging allegations.
Which brings me to another point: where he gets his freaking news. The guy has access to all the information and classified intelligence in the country and he gets his news from watching Fox and from Breitbart. He dismisses all respectable news agencies and journalists as 'fake news' then goes and swallows fake news and headlines by the dozen and goes off on his twitter frenzy.
Do you truly believe that if we were to stand by idly and let him do things his way that he will somehow make America great again. ? We have the equivalent of a toddler in office. A ticking time bomb and for some reason you want us to all be on board with it. It's sad what this country has come to.
-
Oh great, another whiney, creampuff, liberal dolt who reads the fake news instead of the real deal. Move out of the USA Like all the other sore loser twits who said they would when Trump was elected. Meanwhile, the rest of us are enjoying record profits due to confidence in President Trump.
[QUOTE=DavidL;2011389] disagree.[/QUOTE].
-
Maybe / maybe not. Depends on the political affiliations of the respondents. The three "academic advisors" who conducted the study were clearly biased democrats.
[QUOTE=Revere;2000412]I thought you all be interested. This poll seems to be very legit:
News Chicago Inc.
Obama 12th best president, Lincoln first, Clinton 15th: Historians.
.[/QUOTE].
-
[QUOTE=DCups;2011455]Maybe / maybe not. Depends on the political affiliations of the respondents. The three "academic advisors" who conducted the study were clearly biased democrats.
.[/QUOTE]Actually, it depends on the criteria used to define the concept of "greatness" and the metrics used to measure each criterion. To the extent that those conducting the analyses were legitimate social scientists, party affiliation should not have been a factor at all. Such studies--and I've read a couple--are interesting, but they assess men who held office in widely different periods, and it's impossible to control for all of the variables associated with these differences.
How to account, for example, for the access to instant communications which enables the five year old current occupant of the White House to blurt out the impulsive electronic impulses that pass for thought in the chaotic gray mass that passes for his brain?
The Trump anomaly notwithstanding, it's very difficult to objectively compare outcomes / characteristics across such a broad span of history.
GE.