Jump to content

The Trump Presidency


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Sobeit said:

No one stopped Carrier from moving, but I think government has a vested interest in stimulating jobs and the economy. They should not be propping companies up. However they should make it know that American companies will pay a penalty if they think they will move jobs out of country and prophet from shipping products back. There use to be a day when businesses had to show they served the public interest and I am not against that either.

Now getting rid of regulations and lowering corporate tax rates frees the market for competition. It opens the markets for companies to compete with the big boys. This is the plan and that is how you MAGA.

What's your opinion of Keynesianism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mr. Hoopah!

    9627

  • Leon Troutsky

    8096

  • Psychic Gibbon

    7930

  • AF89

    6238

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Cities are a progressive plot? Jesus Christ, dude. :lol:

Reading is fundamental. SUPER CITIES. Yeah there was some stink about it a few years ago as that UN biodiversity treaty almost passed. Part of it that came out in congress was large population centers along the coast. You can google around and find it but I am willing to bet that you already know all about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

Reading is fundamental. SUPER CITIES. Yeah there was some stink about it a few years ago as that UN biodiversity treaty almost passed. Part of it that came out in congress was large population centers along the coast. You can google around and find it but I am willing to bet that you already know all about it.

The sites I'm seeing are poorly formatted, have skulls and illumnati decorations, have urls like "wakeup-world.com," and, of course, plenty of stuff from infowars.

About what I expected. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

What's your opinion of Keynesianism?

I hate government intervention into specific markets. Boon and bust cycles are natural. My problem with government intervention is always the desire to regulate and control. There are pros and cons to most economic theories but Keynesianism is probably my least favorite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

I hate government intervention into specific markets. Boon and bust cycles are natural. My problem with government intervention is always the desire to regulate and control. There are pros and cons to most economic theories but Keynesianism is probably my least favorite.

I don't know of any economic theory that says boom and bust cycles aren't natural or are completely preventable. Keynesian economics' goal, in the broadest sense, is to limit the frequency and shock of the bust cycles through monetary regulation and an active fiscal policy and for the government to take advantage of the bust cycles through government programs (eg. infrastructure) to inject production into the economy when it's cheaper to do so.

I dunno. It's just weird that you're demonizing interventionism and schools of economics that are proponents of it in a soft touch sort of way while praising micromanagement intervention on specific segments of the economy (ie. manufacturing) and even on specific companies (ie. Carrier deal).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

I don't know of any economic theory that says boom and bust cycles aren't natural or are completely preventable. Keynesian economics' goal, in the broadest sense, is to limit the frequency and shock of the bust cycles through monetary regulation and an active fiscal policy and for the government to take advantage of the bust cycles through government programs (eg. infrastructure) to inject production into the economy when it's cheaper to do so.

I dunno. It's just weird that you're demonizing interventionism and schools of economics that are proponents of it in a soft touch sort of way while praising micromanagement intervention on specific segments of the economy (ie. manufacturing) and even on specific companies (ie. Carrier deal).

I'm not a globalist. I like national sovereignty. I like free trade if it is in fact free trade. I like free trade locally between individuals and I like free trade globally between nations and corporations. I'm for raising the standard of living in other counties but not while lowering it here. Keeping companies at home or saying if you take advantage of cheap labor and authoritative governments then want to export your product back there will be a price, is very much in the national interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sobeit said:

I'm not a globalist. I like national sovereignty. I like free trade if it is in fact free trade. I like free trade locally between individuals and I like free trade globally between nations and corporations. I'm for raising the standard of living in other counties but not while lowering it here. Keeping companies at home or saying if you take advantage of cheap labor and authoritative governments then want to export your product back there will be a price, is very much in the national interest.

You want free trade but you want to punish companies that take advantage of it. You want free market economics but want to restrict what companies can do and where they can operate. You want to raise the standard of living while raising tariffs.

It sounds more like you want your cake and to eat it, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

I wouldn't call it punishing.  I think he is saying they're free to run their business abroad, but if you want to do that and take jobs away from the American employees, this will be the price of business for you.  By your example the companies are getting low labor costs and they are being taxed less where they choose to do business.  Isn't that the businesses having their cake and eating it too?   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Moore is a windbag.  The thing is, Trump is bringing these issues to the forefront and he has plans to help instead of just lip service.  The lips service these employees have been hearing in these blue collar (the blue wall) states for the last half century.  

That's doubtful. The video itself suggests why they're likely to be disappointed. The man backs up Trump that we're getting screwed on trade deals, and Trump has specifically brought up free trade deals and has advocated imposing tariffs, but by the end of it the man complains that the EU imposes tariffs on American imports... which they do because we don't have a free trade deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sobeit said:

Good thing we are going to roll back regulations and get away from crony capitalism and let the free market play out.

And if "roll back regulations" means more companies engage in wage theft and worker salaries don't rise (or even fall because many in his cabinet oppose raising the minimum wage), wonder what the excuses will be?

Dude, you guys ought to be very nervous about Trump as the leader of your party.  He made some very big promises - 5% GDP growth, cutting taxes, increasing wages, lowering the debt - that he has to keep now.  As I said in another thread, I'm giving him 2 years to see what the economy does and 1.5-2 years on the debt.  We'll see if Trump's mouth is writing checks that his a** can't keep. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

And if "roll back regulations" means more companies engage in wage theft and worker salaries don't rise (or even fall because many in his cabinet oppose raising the minimum wage), wonder what the excuses will be?

Dude, you guys ought to be very nervous about Trump as the leader of your party.  He made some very big promises - 5% GDP growth, cutting taxes, increasing wages, lowering the debt - that he has to keep now.  As I said in another thread, I'm giving him 2 years to see what the economy does and 1.5-2 years on the debt.  We'll see if Trump's mouth is writing checks that his a** can't keep. 

They'll just blame the left when it doesn't work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

At this point to make some on here happy, can we just declare Hillary as your honorary coastal POTUS?  

I'm not quite sure why the Conservative Justice Warriors on here think that an American citizen's vote is somehow less valid if they live in a city, or on the coast.

It's almost like your definition of 'valid vote' is limited to people that you agree with politically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to say that it's refreshing that the country is finally talking about jobs, the economy, and tax regulations (even if nothing improves) rather than focusing on identity politics that no one (but SJW's) care about.

A month ago it was about tranny's in bathrooms. Now it's union jobs and free trade. Amazing.

Edited by unbelievable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2016 at 3:21 PM, WhenFalconsWin said:

The Trump presidency?  Well, I can say ISIS will not surprise Trump.  He is putting military leaders in his cabinet whom he will listen to and take advice from.  Unlike the current POTUS who never even met with Gen. Flynn his DIA director, for 5 years.  Trump will have the right people in place and he will (take his daily briefings face to face) and let them help him make the correct decisions.  

ISIS rise surprised Obama, US intelligence

 

Washington (CNN)ISIS' march across Iraq and Syria -- a campaign that's forced President Barack Obama to return small numbers of US troops to the region, even after touting an end to the decade-long ground offensives there -- came as a surprise to US intelligence, the President told CNN in a new special report.

The terror organization's rise in a tumultuous Middle East has provided Obama some of the toughest decisions of his presidency, choices that CNN's Fareed Zakaria explores in "The Legacy of Barack Obama" airing Wednesday.
"The ability of ISIL to not just mass inside of Syria, but then to initiate major land offensives that took Mosul, for example, that was not on my intelligence radar screen," Obama told Zakaria, using the administration's term for the Islamic State terror group.
As Obama's presidency concludes, it's clearer than ever he'll depart the White House with Syrians facing nearly unyielding misery.
 
The city of Aleppo has become a nightmare for the tens of thousands of Syrians still living there, short on food and medical supplies as cold winter weather sets in. The conflict has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, spurred a destabilizing refugee crisis in Europe, and led to the rise of a terror group that Obama admits he didn't see coming.
It's a legacy he says haunts him, but as he explains to Zakaria in Wednesday's special, the decisions he did make were the best he could muster in a country with no good choices.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/isis-surprise-obama/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, unbelievable said:

I would like to say that it's refreshing that the country is finally talking about jobs, the economy, and tax regulations (even if nothing improves) rather than focusing on identity politics that no one (but SJW's) care about.

A month ago it was about tranny's in bathrooms. Now it's union jobs and free trade. Amazing.

Yeah, remember when Democrats passed a bill re. transexual bathroom use in NC?

Wait...that was Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eatcorn said:

Yeah, remember when Democrats passed a bill re. transexual bathroom use in NC?

Wait...that was Republicans.

"Stupid liberals and their identity politics. So easily triggered.

"Now, if you don't mind us, we're going to pass these religious freedom laws to save our Judeo-Christian values and rant for months on end about someone not standing for the pledge of allegiance."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTR, I was told many times that the point of keeping transgender people from using public bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity was that condoning it would give child molesters free reign to attack children. You can't compare something so heinous to typical SJW hyperbole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

For all his foreign policy blunders and missed security briefings (where this problem snuck up on him) he's had to repeat this a 1000 times with all the money and lives he has cost us with his foreign policies.  But hey, this is a start.  

Another false claim about Obama:

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/24/14067676-washington-post-checks-bogus-claim-that-obama-skips-intelligence-briefings

Trump, on the other hand...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-has-declined-many-intelligence-briefings-offered-to-him/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2016 at 1:41 PM, eatcorn said:

Yeah, remember when Democrats passed a bill re. transexual bathroom use in NC?

Wait...that was Republicans.

So you managed to prove that you only know half of the story. What ordinance was passed to force the law in the first place?

Democrats were so focused on identity politics that it engulfed the entire government's attention; passing "hate" laws and censorship. The left is still obsessed by it. They're crying about censoring "Fake" news while the adults are working on the economy and jobs.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...