Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

What has Trump done right so far?

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Tenshinai   » Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:00 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

CRC wrote:
Actually, what I was trying to do, and what has enamored me to these particular forums, was have discussions on political issues similar to those on Weber's books. Very few of those are confrontational and the differing POVs, contributions and speculations sometime quite entertaining.

Unfortunately the same approach to discussing Safehold's next arc, or the fate of the Mandarins, or WTFO vampires in space don't seem to apply to politics.

A bit of a shame actually...


They don´t apply, then find a way to make them apply. :ugeek:
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Starsaber   » Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:06 pm

Starsaber
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:40 am

CRC wrote:But once again this entire discussion is on the ARRA and completely discounts, ignores and attempts to take Obama off the hook for the rise in the debt due to the actual Budget acts that Obama signed starting in March 2009.


What do you think would have been the impact to the economy of government expenditures going down $1 billion in one year? Even if the government could agree on where the cuts would come from (as they clearly weren't able to even over 8 years), treating it like flipping a light switch probably would have plunged us right back into a recession. A lot of that would have had to involve either not spending as much to buy stuff from domestic suppliers (probably resulting in people getting laid off down the chain) or firing a lot of government employees when unemployment was already high. You can argue that the rate of cutting the deficit was too slow, and that's probably fair.

Any serious conversation about the debt has to involve both cuts to spending and increases in taxes (temporary and specifically tied to the status of the debt). Only increasing taxes won't solve the structural problems that led to the debt and would screw up the economy even worse, but only cutting spending would impact critical services. Neither major party is serious about dealing with the debt when they're in power but they're extremely concerned about it when they can use it as a weapon against their political opponents.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:18 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

Starsaber wrote:
CRC wrote:But once again this entire discussion is on the ARRA and completely discounts, ignores and attempts to take Obama off the hook for the rise in the debt due to the actual Budget acts that Obama signed starting in March 2009.


What do you think would have been the impact to the economy of government expenditures going down $1 billion in one year?


(I'm assuming that was meant to be "trillion")

(Unless that's the UK version of "Billion" that actually means a million million instead of the American usage which means a thousand million.) ;)
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:13 pm

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:45 am

Starsaber wrote:
CRC wrote:But once again this entire discussion is on the ARRA and completely discounts, ignores and attempts to take Obama off the hook for the rise in the debt due to the actual Budget acts that Obama signed starting in March 2009.


What do you think would have been the impact to the economy of government expenditures going down $1 billion in one year? Even if the government could agree on where the cuts would come from (as they clearly weren't able to even over 8 years), treating it like flipping a light switch probably would have plunged us right back into a recession. A lot of that would have had to involve either not spending as much to buy stuff from domestic suppliers (probably resulting in people getting laid off down the chain) or firing a lot of government employees when unemployment was already high. You can argue that the rate of cutting the deficit was too slow, and that's probably fair.

Any serious conversation about the debt has to involve both cuts to spending and increases in taxes (temporary and specifically tied to the status of the debt). Only increasing taxes won't solve the structural problems that led to the debt and would screw up the economy even worse, but only cutting spending would impact critical services. Neither major party is serious about dealing with the debt when they're in power but they're extremely concerned about it when they can use it as a weapon against their political opponents.


Good question. The budget act signed off in March 2009 greatly INCREASED spending over and above the original 2009 budget process approved in 2008.

So on top of that increase - the ARRA increased it even further, and then the June or July budget for the "off-budget" war efforts increased it even more.

So its not a matter of any reductions in spending at all, its a matter of how large the increases were.


The problem I basically have on increased taxes can be summed up by the best example of Political thievery known as the Social Security Trust Fund. A lot of people actually believe there is actual money stashed somewhere. Years and years of SSI tax surpluses were basically spent - and that is what would happen, and has happened, with every tax increase.

We keep getting larger and larger deficits, and larger and larger excuses. In good times we must spend more to fix dis dat and de udder. In bad times we must spend more to take care of dis dat and de udder. Its a never ending cycle.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:37 pm

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:45 am

gcomeau wrote:
Of course they can exist, and of course they are allowed.


But they have an agenda. They aren't an objective arbiter of what was occurring, they exist for the PURPOSE of promoting one specific view of events. So of course their analysis is going to say their view is right. The entire reason they exist is to say their view is right..


That is why their analysis should be especially interesting to you. it provides a completely different perspective. I could say the same about any anti- or pro-global warming advocacy group.

There is no such thing as an objective POV. Period.


gcomeau wrote: Which is why things like the CBO exist. To give us neutral analysis. And that neutral analysis says it looks like the stimulus worked just fine.


If you want an honest opinion on whether cats are good or bad, you don't ask the American Association for the Advancement of Dogs.


But if you want to see what they do with the data, you actually do go look at what they have to say. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest.


gcomeau wrote:Minor revisions only. The reality that the stimulus clearly worked is unchanged. Which is the only point of disagreement with your right wing think tank analysis that matters for this topic.


Minor revisions that add up to Billions of dollars.

gcomeau wrote:We already knew the cost. It was *in the bill*.


Not really. The CBO projection in the bill was off (low) by over $100B, and because the money was borrowed, it will continue to cost more for far more than the 10 years projected by the CBO.

gcomeau wrote:No, not really. Not when the purpose is to get that money circulating in the economy. Also known as ECONOMIC STIMULUS.

The POINT is to spend money. Do you really still not understand that?


I understand that. I also understand that the GREAT RECESSION ended in June 2009. Prior to anything the ARRA did to for ECONOMIC STIMULOUS.


gcomeau wrote:And those who are honest will recognize that both best and worse case outcomes are put there only to cover low probability hedges against ALL the data being wrong in the same direction, by the most it could statistically be expected to be wrong by. Which is extremely unlikely so long after the events the analysis is being performed on, and say the real effect was most likely somewhere in the middle.

And somewhere in the middle looks just fine to me.


And it doesn't to me. Not with the additional burden of the money being borrowed that was spent.

Now, had Obama put $100B in a manned mission to Mars, that would have been money well spent considering the type of investment return we got back from the moon shots.


gcomeau wrote:Which is the one thing *I* agreed with them on too. And which Democrats agree with them on. And which the GOP does NOT.


The GOP accepts the CBO analysis and this particular type of impact. I'm not sure what their actual position is on the impact of tax reductions. But my take is that I would much rather have less power, read less money in DC hands, and more in people's hands to determine winners and losers, not vice versa. Its a freedom thing, not a ROI thing.


gcomeau wrote:If you don't know who keeps insisting on tax cuts as stimulus in American politics you have been buried in an underground bunker somewhere for the last 30 years with no outside media access.


Tax cuts do stimulate, just not as much as direct purchases, according to the CBO analysis. But tax cuts give power back to the people that earned the money in the first place. GOVT keeping that money gives power to the politicians.

gcomeau wrote:As a sop to the Republicans to try to get them to vote for the damn thing.


Yes, its called political bargaining. Just like giving tax increases is how you get Democrats on board. That pretty much sums it up right there.

gcomeau wrote:HE'S NOT FIGHTING AN ECONOMIC EMERGENCY. He was handed a relatively healthy economy from Obama. There is no reason to sign emergency spending legislation outside the normal budget cycle.


Yes Obama was fighting an economic emergency that essentially ended 5 months after he took the oath of office. And for that we have Trillions of dollars of additional debt to thank him for, with no end in sight.

Additional debt he basically signed off on starting in March 2009...
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:37 pm

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:45 am

Halafrickinula, I think I finally have this quote stuff figured out!!!!!
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by gcomeau   » Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:02 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

CRC wrote:
gcomeau wrote:
Of course they can exist, and of course they are allowed.


But they have an agenda. They aren't an objective arbiter of what was occurring, they exist for the PURPOSE of promoting one specific view of events. So of course their analysis is going to say their view is right. The entire reason they exist is to say their view is right..


That is why their analysis should be especially interesting to you. it provides a completely different perspective. I could say the same about any anti- or pro-global warming advocacy group.


You are writing as if you think I wasn't already familiar with the analysis of any of those groups.

There is no such thing as an objective POV. Period.


But there are analyses which make the best attempt. And there are analyses which have *no interest* in objectivity. The CBO is the former. Your cited think tank is the latter.

gcomeau wrote:Minor revisions only. The reality that the stimulus clearly worked is unchanged. Which is the only point of disagreement with your right wing think tank analysis that matters for this topic.


Minor revisions that add up to Billions of dollars.


In a multi Trillion dollar budget.

Minor. Revision.

One which does not alter the conclusion that is the point of contention. That the stimulus *worked*.

gcomeau wrote:No, not really. Not when the purpose is to get that money circulating in the economy. Also known as ECONOMIC STIMULUS.

The POINT is to spend money. Do you really still not understand that?


I understand that. I also understand that the GREAT RECESSION ended in June 2009. Prior to anything the ARRA did to for ECONOMIC STIMULOUS.



Oh FFS.

The technical definition of the end of a recession is the first quarter GDP growth switches from negative to positive. So yes technically the recession ended June 2009.

But you are saying that as if the problem was over then. That there was no more economic emergency to address. What were the economic conditions in June 2009?

Unemployment was at almost 10%, the financial markets were in disarray, the housing market had been *gutted*, GDP was massively depressed.

End of technical recession does not mean end of problem. FFS 7 years later unemployment was at half that, GDP had been growing for years, the housing and financial market was stabilized..... and Republicans were STILL claiming the economy was a disaster. So compare that to 7 years ago and try telling me it was all fine back then because "the recession ended".


The end of the recession is like the last of the fire that burned your house down being extinguished. That doesn't end your problem, there's still all that fire damage to deal with. You still have to rebuild your damn house and replace all your lost stuff. And that doesn't come free.

That. Takes. Spending.



If someone came along and told you you were being ridiculously irresponsible spending money to put a roof back over your family's head and replace their burned up clothes and etc etc because "what are you doing? The fire isn't burning any more! There's no serious problem you need to be spending all this money on!" how would you react to that???

And it doesn't to me. Not with the additional burden of the money being borrowed that was spent.

Now, had Obama put $100B in a manned mission to Mars, that would have been money well spent considering the type of investment return we got back from the moon shots.


You have to be kidding me.

Look, I'm a huge fan of manned missions to Mars, but there were other rather clearly higher priorities at the time.


gcomeau wrote:Which is the one thing *I* agreed with them on too. And which Democrats agree with them on. And which the GOP does NOT.


The GOP accepts the CBO analysis and this particular type of impact.


Yeah, their words and actions say otherwise

They don't act like they accept it. They act like tax cuts are God's magic economy medicine and spending is of the Devil every time it's time to give a speech to their base.


gcomeau wrote:If you don't know who keeps insisting on tax cuts as stimulus in American politics you have been buried in an underground bunker somewhere for the last 30 years with no outside media access.


Tax cuts do stimulate, just not as much as direct purchases, according to the CBO analysis. But tax cuts give power back to the people that earned the money in the first place. GOVT keeping that money gives power to the politicians.


Oh bullshit.

The most free and most powerful the middle class in this nation has EVER been was during the huge middle class expansion of the 50s and 60s.

Tax rates dwarfed what they are now.

When we talk about tax cuts from the GOP we are pretty much ALWAYS talking about tax cuts for the rich to make sure they can accumulate ever increasing amounts of wealth and power. So sure, THOSE people get more power given to them. But not most people, most people get screwed.


gcomeau wrote:As a sop to the Republicans to try to get them to vote for the damn thing.


Yes, its called political bargaining. Just like giving tax increases is how you get Democrats on board. That pretty much sums it up right there.


Yes it does!

Because see, the nature of the bargaining matters. And what did the Republicans demand as their bargaining position? That more of the stimulus was in the form of tax cuts, the *least* effective form of stimulus.

gcomeau wrote:HE'S NOT FIGHTING AN ECONOMIC EMERGENCY. He was handed a relatively healthy economy from Obama. There is no reason to sign emergency spending legislation outside the normal budget cycle.


Yes Obama was fighting an economic emergency that essentially ended 5 months after he took the oath of office.


See previous response to this nonsensical statement.Recession ending does not mean emergency ending.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Tenshinai   » Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:23 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Starsaber wrote:
What do you think would have been the impact to the economy of government expenditures going down $1 billion in one year? Even if the government could agree on where the cuts would come from (as they clearly weren't able to even over 8 years), treating it like flipping a light switch probably would have plunged us right back into a recession. A lot of that would have had to involve either not spending as much to buy stuff from domestic suppliers (probably resulting in people getting laid off down the chain) or firing a lot of government employees when unemployment was already high. You can argue that the rate of cutting the deficit was too slow, and that's probably fair.

Any serious conversation about the debt has to involve both cuts to spending and increases in taxes (temporary and specifically tied to the status of the debt). Only increasing taxes won't solve the structural problems that led to the debt and would screw up the economy even worse, but only cutting spending would impact critical services. Neither major party is serious about dealing with the debt when they're in power but they're extremely concerned about it when they can use it as a weapon against their political opponents.


Thing is, part of the structural problems is that US wants things, but doesn´t want to pay the price, doesn´t want the taxes needed to get it.

USA COULD cut its deficit massively just by removing all the tax cuts/exemptions/benefits/etc, but despite how that would affect the richest 1% far more than the rest, the rest for some reason defends it rabidly with any and all means because they have been conned into believing that it´s good for them.


Something that is rarely brought up is also the fact that trying to cut expenditures can very easily turn into causing MORE expenses.
And in USA that is vehemently denied as even possible among all but a tiny minority.

A good example is healthcare, beacuse it is a general rule that the longer it takes before a problem is properly treated, the more it is going to cost even just in direct medical costs, even while ignoring that poor healthcare also means a lot of people working less and feeling a lot more shitty which generates more psychological problems as well as secondary problems like drinking, drugs, brawls and domestic fights which in turn causes issues or even injuries for potentially up to MANY others...

So, cutting healthcare costs by 20% might easily end up costing you 10 times as much or even more when all effects are looked at.

There´s a bad enough lack of holistic thought about budgeting here, USA is ridiculously worse due to the rabid anti-taxation folks.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Annachie   » Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:07 am

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

Case in point Tensh.

There's a push down here in Oz by the federal government to remove weekend penalty rates for food service workers.

Then someone pointed out that it will remove a good chunk of tax revenue from a budget that is already in the shit.
Never mind the follow on hit from low income workers now using welfare because their income dropped



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by The E   » Sat Apr 01, 2017 7:06 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Meerbusch, Germany

Hey, here's something Trump did right! Just look at this chart showing his success in office:

Image

Wait, hang on. I think something's off there. Sorry, false alarm. This actually just shows how good a job Obama did; so sorry for that. Amateur mistake, that, really. Shameful.
Top

Return to Politics