Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
GDP and Debt growth
#21
(11-13-2018, 05:20 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: JohnL, come on and take your head out of the earth.

S13
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#22
(11-13-2018, 05:20 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: ..."Trump's strategy will take time", "it hurts at the beginning but long term it will be profitable", and now "he is busy with his mid-term campain"...
Ok, but how long are you going to stay blindfolded like this?

No, You are mistaking the idea of revenue with tax. As Jude Wanniski explained with the Laffer Curve, Keynesian Economics confuses the simplest ideas. When asked how quickly Reaganomics would work, he replied as fast as bending over to pick up a twenty dollar bill you find on the ground. If you only look at Keynesian Economics using Keynesian bookkeeping you will never understand the way the world works.
Reply
#23
Also, You can't blame Trump's budget ideas for increasing the deficit, when his ideas brought in more revenue. The budget was 100% written by elites in both parties trying to shove frivolous, pork-ridden spending down our throats in exchange for funding the military. Record revenue
Reply
#24
That's what I said: Despite record taxes, he (Trump) still manages to be in a deficit of $100B.

Not only he didn't reduce spending as promised, but didn't reduce taxes neither.

WmL Wrote:The budget was 100% written by elites in both parties trying to shove frivolous, pork-ridden spending

And Trump is 100% part of it. I'll have a better opinion of Trump when I'll see a difference with Obama, W and Bill Clinton. So far I see none.
Reply
#25
(11-22-2018, 03:14 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: That's what I said: Despite record taxes, he (Trump) still manages to be in a deficit of $100B.

Not only he didn't reduce spending as promised, but didn't reduce taxes neither.

WmL Wrote:The budget was 100% written by elites in both parties trying to shove frivolous, pork-ridden spending

And Trump is 100% part of it. I'll have a better opinion of Trump when I'll see a difference with Obama, W and Bill Clinton. So far I see none.

Fred, addressing the terrible debt right now is not possible.  I presume he is waiting until after the 2020 election before he attacks this thing.  He needs to win the election and regain both houses before he can make any real headway.  Consequently he is concentrating on the "here and now" economy and preparing for the post election war.  

If I were in his shoes, that is what I would be doing. But then again, who am I to..................... Spiteful
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#26
(11-22-2018, 03:14 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: ...And Trump is 100% part of it.

Absolutely not. The Never Trumpers and elites on the Right, and the Trump-haters on the Left, wrote the budget to mock Trump's requests for what he wanted to see. In order to get part of the money he requested for the immediate infusion to the military, he had to also sign off on huge payments to things that are not needed, nor even important to anyone. They were put in there just to show him they could do it and he couldn't do anything about it. His budget requests were ignored to a large degree, and just enough was offered to him to fund his most major projects.

Mark Levin on the Budget Deal: “This is a Historic Scam”
Reply
#27
WmLambert, Thats exactly what I mean by being 100% part of it:
Agreeing on frivolous spending of others so that they will agree with your own frivolous spending.

Not only he let others spending billions uselessly, but he did so so that he could also spend billions uselessly.

You Wrote:he had to also sign off on huge payments to things that are not needed, nor even important to anyone.
More money for the military is also not needed and not important.

Why didn't he think "I was elected by the poeple to fix the budget. I won't bend to pressures." and cancel or postpone his increase in military spending and force others to cancel other spendings.
Like this he would have saved hundreds of billions in your taxpayer money.

Instead he just agrees to keep the governement big and fat like himself.


JL Wrote:I presume he is waiting until after the 2020 election before he attacks this thing.

I'm afraid you will wait a long time if he is re-elected.
Why didn't he attack the problem right after he was elected in 2016? Why should he do it after 2020 if he didn't feel like doing it before?

He won't do it!

JL Wrote:If I were in his shoes, that is what I would be doing.
You mean, you would also boost overspending other's money?
Reply
#28
No Fred.

I understand you can't stand him, and would like to see him six feet under. I pretty much felt the same way. But like him or not, he is doing what he campaigned about. He's putting the US ahead of others. Now, if you are not a US citizen, that's terrible, and not what you(second person plural) are looking for. I understand this. But the truth is that he has to take care of "in-house" business before looking outward.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#29
Quote:He's putting the US ahead of others.

be very careful here. It is what he says, yes. It is possibly what he tries to achieve. It is likely not what would result from his actions.

Analogy: the current age will be called in the textbooks, "the agony of the US". Counterpart: agony of the USSR in 1970s.
So .. consider Trump vs Gorbachev, situations do have some similarities.

Most likely Gorbachev indeed tried to improve the situation in the USSR! But the result was quickening its demise.
Same thing may be happening with Trump... so give him a medal for good intentions, if you want, but not for the results .. so far, abysmal.

I would have had no problem with Trump if his MAGA thing actually could do something good for the US, even if this meant destruction of some other countries (Europe, for instance, must be destroyed -- in the name of MAGA). But so far he is causing only harm, and to the US most of all. He is dismantling the mechanisms that took decades to establish ... and building nothing to replace them.

Big Orange Wrecking Ball .....
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#30
JL Wrote:I understand you can't stand him, and would like to see him six feet under.

Wanting to see him six feet under is a little bit an overstatement. But I'm skeptical of politicians.
I was also skeptical of Obama but with the constant barrage of Barrack bashing here by all the famous AI-Jane contributors except Palladin (mv was on strike), I had little to do in this respect.

It's true that I didn't like him from the beggining because he said a lot of stupid things.
I'm not against his philosophy. About that he's right. I'm against the way he wants to implement it concretely. And also the fact that he is hypocritical, but that's every politician.

Yes, Trump delivered on his promises and that's the problem. Because his promises were very stupid.
At the beginning I hoped that what he said was said to gain votes in the election and that he would be clever enough or that his team would be clever enough, not to apply this hubbub in reality.
I was mostly right. Most of his much mediatized actions were fake.
Unfortunately his tariff craze came through.

The reason why it cam through, I think, is that any governement always enjoy effective revenue increase (tax increase) and so, he had the backing of his team.
Who won't want to have more money if the opportunity arise?

I was also a great fan of French president Macron... until this a**hole taxed french diesel and ignore days of notionwide protests.
I'm able to change my mind.

But wait: There is one promise he didn't deliver. It's the promise of reducing spendings, the deficit and the debt mountain growth.
FAILED.

The only promise which made sens.

Trump doesn't do any harm to me or to my country. His policies have no effect at all on the other side of the pond. He even grew pro-EU after starting his carrier with Bannon and Farage.
But I find sad what he's doing now with your country.

See my replies to mv:

You Wrote:He's putting the US ahead of others.

mv Wrote:be very careful here. It is what he says, yes. It is possibly what he tries to achieve.
It's not my opinion. I think Trump knows that his tariff policies are bad for the US. Industry leaders have made abundantly clear before that it will be bad, and farmers make it abundantly clear now. He even admit it by releasing funds to help them.
He knows it's bad.
He was warned before, just as Junior was warned about Iraq. But Junior believed that he was fighting Evil, in the name of God. Trump, because he slept with prostitutes, can't put forth this argument.
Fact is, trump does it to tax the americans.

He is truely brillant. He succeeds in raising a new tax on american consumers by letting them know that he is taxing the chinese!
I'm sure many americans believe that these tariffs are paid by foreign producers... LOL/ROTFLMAO S2

mv Wrote:Most likely Gorbachev indeed tried to improve the situation in the USSR! But the result was quickening its demise.
But the result was the improvement of the situation in Russia and all the countries west of it. (Those in the south became worse). Even if it was not intended.
Reply
#31
(11-25-2018, 05:08 PM)mv Wrote: ... the current age will be called in the textbooks, "the agony of the US".  Counterpart: agony of the USSR in 1970s.
So .. consider Trump vs Gorbachev, situations do have some similarities...

Poor analogy. Gorbachev was destroyed by a terrible economy. Reagan got the better of him by creating an electronic military technology that the USSR could not duplicate, They had produced a technology that used tubes and Faraday cages to protect against EMP. Reagan had stealth technology that made US tanks, planes, and missiles invisible to them. The USSR military could not answer, so Gorbechev was a loser. The businessmen in Moscow overthrew the Generals.

...Unlike Trump who has created the greatest economy in the history of the world. There is no agony for the US. As the US ascends on the world stage, we will attract wannabes and friendly relations who see hanging on to our pursestrings as the way to create their own successes.
Reply
#32
(11-26-2018, 08:02 PM)WmLambert Wrote: ...Unlike Trump who has created the greatest economy in the history of the world. There is no agony for the US. As the US ascends on the world stage, we will attract wannabes and friendly relations who see hanging on to our pursestrings as the way to create their own successes.

He created all this? Or is he just presiding over things that have been building before him?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#33
(11-26-2018, 08:54 PM)John L Wrote: ...He created all this?  Or is he just presiding over things that have been building before him?

He created what we have now by ridding us of Obama's legacy, and allowing our Free Enterprise system to work again. He didn't invent it, per se, but he he may have stopped its destruction.
Reply
#34
Quote:Poor analogy. Gorbachev was destroyed by a terrible economy. Reagan got the better of him by creating an electronic military technology that the USSR could not duplicate, They had produced a technology that used tubes and Faraday cages to protect against EMP. Reagan had stealth technology that made US tanks, planes, and missiles invisible to them. The USSR military could not answer, so Gorbechev was a loser. The businessmen in Moscow overthrew the Generals.

Totally inaccurate, sorry.

There was no decisive military advantage for the US at the time of Gorbachev, only the vaporware StarWars program... Post-Vietnam, US was not even in a position to fight a regional war!

The reform analogy is actually perfect: in the 1970s USSR' economy was indeed falling behind, but this had no bearing on the survival of the regime, it could have lasted another 30 or 50 years with no reforms at all. Or the economy could have been fixed using Chinese type of reforming .. Chinese economy in 1970s was yet worse. What brought it down was the reforming without thinking.

Now, US of the last twenty years: poor economy, falling behind China and even Russia now. Under Obama no-reforming policies, US could have lingered for another couple of decades.... Under Trump reforming the demise will occur much faster, because Anny does not think.

As for Trump creating anything ... hmm ... lots of twits ... do I underestimate their power ?

===

One essential difference between Gorbachev and Anny : nothing done by Gorbachev increased chances of a global nuclear war, Gorby was a dork, but not a threat to Humanity. On the other hand, Anny (yeah, let's write the stupid broad with two N's, looks better) ... creates probabilities all the time.

Just in the last week, Anny's proxies in Syria staged a massive chemical weapons attack (Aleppo), and then Anny's proxy in the Ukraine did his thing. Chances of either one leading to full scale nuclear war are low.... but Anny is doing so many things like this that eventually he may succeed. And this makes the dumb broad truly dangerous to everyone.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#35
(11-27-2018, 11:41 AM)mv Wrote: ...There was no decisive military advantage for the US at the time of Gorbachev, only the vaporware StarWars program... Post-Vietnam, US was not even in a position to fight a regional war!

...One essential difference between Gorbachev and Anny :  nothing done by Gorbachev increased chances of a global nuclear war, Gorby was a dork, but not a threat to Humanity.

Largely only repeating disinformation. Do you have a binder full of talking points to bring out when posting? If so what does your binder say to explain how Gorbachev left Moscow to reappear in the Presidio overlooking the USA West coast beaches and a military base as the official United Nations bureaucrat in charge of AGW. At one time, in his new role, he was ceded as having more power than he ever had. Please, dork me no dorks.

Firstly, there was a huge military advantage. The Generals maintained power and a huge percentage of the GNP by pretending to have a great war machine. When they had to admit they had no answer for the new tech, they lost that percentage of the budget and the businessmen took over. The USSR war machine was virtually defunct. They could never redesign their military for thye money they had. They couldn't just stick a few circuit boards into their tanks, they had to be rebuilt from scratch.

Secondly, In 1985, Gorbachev gave us Perestroika and Glasnost. Perestroika was restructuring, and Glasnost was transparency and opening KGB files. What I said is no longer open to speculation, it is documented fact.
Reply
#36
WmL Wrote:He created what we have now by ridding us of Obama's legacy, and allowing our Free Enterprise system to work again. He didn't invent it, per se, but he he may have stopped its destruction.

True: The Clown didn't invent the elimination of Obama's legacy. (I think it was invented here, on this forum)
But how did he prevent Obama's legacy destruction, if it's eliminated... I don't understand... S6

Wml Wrote:The businessmen in Moscow overthrew the Generals.
mv Wrote:Totally inaccurate, sorry.
Indeed: Putin is a former KGB colonel (Ok, not a general) and is 100% focused on the military.


Trump Wrote:The U.S. saved General Motors, and this is the THANKS we get!

Obama saved GM. Not Trump. So why should they thank this clown?

Trump Wrote:We are now looking at cutting all @GM subsidies, including ... for electric cars
How does he dare??? Cutting subsidies for electric cars? It's equivalent to excommunication!

[Image: excommunicationceremony-245x300.jpg]

Anyway, there is no other subisdies to cut. He already cut the preferential zero tariffs for GM's raw material imports. Not much left to do to hurt them.
Yet, he still makes clear he wants to hurt them. (To undo Obama's legacy)

GM Wrote:GM currently builds just one vehicle in China that it exports to the United States

The Orang-Utang Clown Wrote:I am here to protect America’s Workers!

15000 jobs cut

Expect GM to boost their production in China, where not only jobs, but also supplies are cheaper now, thanks to the new tariffs.
It's clear: US consumers will not buy cars if they are too expensive. So why building them in the US if it's more expensive while fewer americans buy them?

Harley Davidson did the same a few months ago.
Reply
#37
(11-27-2018, 03:20 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Largely only repeating disinformation. Do you have a binder full of talking points to bring out when posting?
LOL, no, Wm, but you do. You are not familiar with the facts, and you are single-sourcing from the Entity propaganda machine.

Quote:If so what does your binder say to explain how Gorbachev left Moscow to reappear in the Presidio overlooking the USA West coast beaches and a military base as the official United Nations bureaucrat in charge of AGW. At one time, in his new role, he was ceded as having more power than he ever had. Please, dork me no dorks.

Not even sure what you are trying to say, but probably the answer is simply : he lost control. So will Trump if he continues on his current trajectory. 

Quote:Firstly, there was a huge military advantage. The Generals maintained power and a huge percentage of the GNP by pretending to have a great war machine. When they had to admit they had no answer for the new tech, they lost that percentage of the budget and the businessmen took over. The USSR war machine was virtually defunct. They could never redesign their military for thye money they had. They couldn't just stick a few circuit boards into their tanks, they had to be rebuilt from scratch.

Utter nonsense.  Military balance was maintained, at all times USSR had sufficient means to fully erase the US. 
(In fact, the current strategic advantage of Russia is half-due to the development done back in the USSR days.)

And yes, military expenses were a large part of the budget, but they are even larger part in the US, so what? 

Quote:Secondly, In 1985, Gorbachev gave us Perestroika and Glasnost.

Would you kindly explain *us* above? Are you saying that Gorbachev was a US agent? I'm not sure about this.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#38
(11-27-2018, 06:09 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: [quote='Wml']
The businessmen in Moscow overthrew the Generals.
mv Wrote:Totally inaccurate, sorry.

You forget who had the money in 1985. The Generals had embarrassing riches back then - far more than the people thought was a fair share. It was the failure of their war plans that ended their power. They could not even stay in shouting range - so the businessmen rose up and grabbed the reins. They replaced Gorbachev and Gorbachev took his lucre and ran. The Generals still held military power - but they became walled off from the money. The strongmen fought it out. Billionaire businessmen contended with Russian mafia and ex-KGB. It ended with Putin on the throne. What do you dispute?
Reply
#39
Quote:What do you dispute?

Any connection of what you wrote with the reality, only this. S6

I do not have a clue where you got the idea of Generals -- it is totally off, not even a minor factor. Generals in USSR were tightly controlled until the total breakdown of the state and had no access to money. And they had no war plans of their own, simply could not. Scrap them, this is nonsense.
(And yes, after the collapse, some generals, officers, and even smart soldiers suddenly discovered existence of money and rushed into getting their spoils... but this was AFTER).

But there was another group that indeed had its own plans and greatly contributed to the collapse and then breakup : regional elites. Reforms of Gorbachev -- just like any large scale reforms -- should have addressed such factors, but like Trump now, Gorbachev just went ahead with overall good ideas (limited capitalism -- perestroika, free media -- glasnost' in his case), but failed to calculate other factors, and then failed to control them.

The aspirations of regional elites happens to be a universal factor --- it showed up in the late Roman Empire as decisive, it showed up during the Chinese reforms of the last 30 years (and was efficiently suppressed -- PRC leaders are wise), it is emerging in the EU and already a factor (Catalonia!, and it will get worse as the EU breaks up), and while I fail to see how they can be a factor in the US, I'd not be too surprised if they do come up *somehow*.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#40
(11-28-2018, 11:55 AM)mv Wrote: Generals in USSR were tightly controlled until the total breakdown of the state and had no access to money.

...Gorbachev just went ahead with overall good ideas (limited capitalism -- perestroika, free media -- glasnost' in his case), but failed to calculate other factors, and then failed to control them.

... regional elites happens to be a universal factor

"Generals" is what historians have ALWAYS called the USSR Military that controlled the largest percentage of GNP. Of course they knew about money - they controlled most of it - until the US technology made their war plans obsolete. The proportion of spending moved away from the military. That is universally known. Find anything that cn contradict that.

Gorbachev lost to the West's economy, and did what he could to attract investment in his nation. His mistake was in trying to control Free Enterprise. He was more fascist than free market.

Government Elites are everywhere - not regional. ...Except in the United States because our Constitution limits government and makes the individual sovereign. Our Constitution allows the individual to flourish, but the free Market does the controlling. Mao thought he could do better, but the little red book is done.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  GDP and Real Growth--Growth of the Rich that is! Grizzly 13 2,924 09-06-2007, 06:47 PM
Last Post: jt

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)