Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- The Impotus Puppet vs The Rise of BootyWalker & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

Keeping humming that tune all the way to your next electoral drubbing.  I'm curious, were you one of the ones who said Reagan's tax cuts wouldn't do a thing either is that before your time?

 

Now that you've brought up Reagan, I'll point out that we can actually look at what happened there, with Trickle Down 1.0.  

 

There's a funny statistic that I read, probably 10 years ago, in an opinion piece.  (I have some problems with the piece.  The main one is that it compares what happened for the 30 years prior to Reagan, vs the 30 years after Reagan.  And that this comparison assumes that Reagan is the only thing that changed.  In reality, I'm sure that lots of things have changed, to cause the disparities which the article lists.  It's not fair to put all of the change on Reagan and trickle down economics.)  

 

However, my problems with the article aside, the article points out that, in the 30 years prior to Reagan, the income of the bottom 90% of income earners in the US went up by 75%.  And the income of the top 1% went up by 80%.  

 

In the 30 years since Reagan, those numbers are 1% and 403%.  

 

So please, tell us all some more about the wondrous ability of trickle down economics to champion the cause of low-income Americans

 


 

There's another little bit of trivia that I'll mention to you, that you might want to chew on:  

 

The last time a Republican President left office with a smaller federal deficit than when he took office, the President was Eisenhower.  

 

The last time a Democrat President left office with a bigger deficit than when he took office, the President was FDR.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Now that you've brought up Reagan, I'll point out that we can actually look at what happened there, with Trickle Down 1.0.  

 

There's a funny statistic that I read, probably 10 years ago, in an opinion piece.  (I have some problems with the piece.  The main one is that it compares what happened for the 30 years prior to Reagan, vs the 30 years after Reagan.  And that this comparison assumes that Reagan is the only thing that changed.  In reality, I'm sure that lots of things have changed, to cause the disparities which the article lists.  It's not fair to put all of the change on Reagan and trickle down economics.)  

 

However, my problems with the article aside, the article points out that, in the 30 years prior to Reagan, the income of the bottom 90% of income earners in the US went up by 75%.  And the income of the top 1% went up by 80%.  

 

In the 30 years since Reagan, those numbers are 1% and 403%.  

 

 

You are attributing the growing economic imbalance to taxes whereas I believe the problem is our trade and immigration policies.  Addressing the growing economic imbalance by changing our trade and immigration policies is what excited me about Trump.  I'm not a blue-collar guy and neither is anyone in my family but I want to see our country become more broadly prosperous like it was when I was growing up.  Trump can't fix decades of poor policies with 4 or 8 years but if he is successful enough maybe the Republicans will become an economic nationalist party and over a generation rebalance things, that is my hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

You are attributing the growing economic imbalance to taxes whereas I believe the problem is our trade and immigration policies.  Addressing the growing economic imbalance by changing our trade and immigration policies is what excited me about Trump.  I'm not a blue-collar guy and neither is anyone in my family but I want to see our country become more broadly prosperous like it was when I was growing up.  Trump can't fix decades of poor policies with 4 or 8 years but if he is successful enough maybe the Republicans will become an economic nationalist party and over a generation rebalance things, that is my hope.

 

Well, now, if you want to try to argue that Reagan's tax cut on the rich isn't the only thing that's changed in our country, I'd certainly agree with you.  

 

I will note, however, that I never mentioned Reagan's tax cut.  You did, when you attempted to label somebody you don't know as being wrong about the consequences of Reagan's tax cuts.  

 

I will also point out that Reagan's tax cuts (and every tax cut on the rich since then) have all been sold as being the magic bullet which will cause incomes for everybody else to soar.  (Based on the theory that billionaires actually all have an inner compulsion to give their little people raises, if only they had enough money, themselves.)  

 

But I (and the rest of the regulars in here) am well aware that cutting taxes on the rich is far from the only piece of economic policy in which the GOP has been actively, enthusiastically, tilting the negotiating table between capital and labor in the direction of favoring capital.  They're also doing it with environmental policy, consumer protections, and labor law.  

 

I'll even point out that I have been known, from time to time, to express the opinion that maybe a little bit of protectionism might be good for the country.  And to note that the purpose of most of the legal "work visa" programs we have, is to push down the price of American labor.  

 

I don't think that's what Trump is doing.  What he's doing seems mostly to consist of looking around for something he can break, then breaking it, and then, when lots of people wail about how much damage he's done, announce that maybe he'll change his mind and stop breaking things, if the other people will simply pay a few hundred million dollars to one of his sons.  

 

Frankly, if you want to increase the wages of American labor, vote for Bernie.  Raise the minimum wage.  (Which will also raise the wages of every worker at the low wage levels, because labor prices all affect each other.)  (And it will also cause inflation.  And will cause the labor market to change a lot, which will cause a lot of jobs to be displaced.  My opinion is that the net result would be a positive, but it will absolutely come with short-term costs.)  Increase labor rights.  

 

 


 

Note:  I am not, by any remote stretch, trying to say that the actions taken by the Dems, on those occasions when they've had power, make them great champions of the working class, either.  Some times, the Dems act to help the working class, and sometimes they work to help corporations and so forth.  It's just that the R's are maniacally fixated on outright harming the working class, to a degree never seen in our history.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, twa said:

deficit vs debt?

Obama can thank Cruz & co  for the former

 

If you want to talk about the last President to leave office with a smaller national debt, feel free to look up the data and tell me who it was. 

 

(I just looked up the data, and it looks like, if you adjust for inflation, the debt did go down after WW2, from $2.5T in 45, to around $1.7T, in 50. And then stay around 1.7-1.8, till 75, when it began going up. So it's possible that somewhere in there, some President might have left it slightly smaller than when he took office.)

 

Which I confess surprises me. I was rather expecting that it had never gone down in our history. 

 

But we both know that the actual purpose of your first sentence is to simply deny reality by using an impossible yardstick (selectively). 

 

And wow, Ted Cruz must be really special. Please explain to me his ability to make Obama lower the federal deficit, beginning with his first budget in 2009, (FY2010), when Ted didn't even get elected till 2013. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O lowered it from the biggest bailout in history?....I'm impressed :rofl89:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just today (12 June 2018) Trump tweeted that the economy is the best its ever been. 

 

Therefore, why the rush to seriously alter current trade and immigration policies? Why not leave it all at status quo if we are humming along at such a historic high?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hail2skins said:

Just today (12 June 2018) Trump tweeted that the economy is the best its ever been. 

 

Therefore, why the rush to seriously alter current trade and immigration policies? Why not leave it all at status quo if we are humming along at such a historic high?

 

If there are issues needing addressed. they need addressed.

 

to not do so is lazy......lows follow highs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

If there are issues needing addressed. they need addressed.

 

to not do so is lazy......lows follow highs.

Twa, do you not agree that the economy is the best it's ever been?

 

if so, why risk major tweaks? Isn't it important to keep this train moving with the policies that got us here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

Twa, do you not agree that the economy is the best it's ever been?

 

 

 

No

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

Just today (12 June 2018) Trump tweeted that the economy is the best its ever been. 

 

Therefore, why the rush to seriously alter current trade and immigration policies? Why not leave it all at status quo if we are humming along at such a historic high?

 

Did he say the economy is the best ever or some statistic like black unemployment is the best it's ever been?  Which Idon't believe for a minute there are millions blacks that are unemployed or underemployed and tens of millions of whites or others in the same position.  The economy is no where near the best it's ever been.  There are vast areas of the country where the industry has been hallowed out over the last 25 yrars or more.  Trump has revved up the economy but it's a long ways from really strong and healthy in my pinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hail2skins said:

Just today (12 June 2018) Trump tweeted that the economy is the best its ever been. 

 

Therefore, why the rush to seriously alter current trade and immigration policies? Why not leave it all at status quo if we are humming along at such a historic high?

Good point on Trade policies and some of the immigration policies.

Edited by nonniey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, remind me again how Hillary was polling.

 

I do think Biden would be the most competitive in key areas with the right support.... two old and colorful white guys.:bye:

 

then again he has never done well in a national

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden would've crushed trump in the last election if he decided to run so that poll is no surprise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spjunkies said:

Biden would've crushed trump in the last election if he decided to run so that poll is no surprise. 

 

Would he have crushed Hillary though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Would he have crushed Hillary though?

If the Dems had a real open race in 2016; where all candidates could run;  Hillary would have gotten anywhere near the nomination.

Some of the women who are running in 2020, would've been far better candidates than her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, spjunkies said:

 

Yeah, I believe he would have. 

 

I doubt it going from history, but It would have been interesting to have a real primary.

 

after all Hillary did fairly well against Obama.....is Biden in his league?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, twa said:

 

I doubt it going from history, but It would have been interesting to have a real primary.

 

after all Hillary did fairly well against Obama.....is Biden in his league?

Well, Obama was also a relative unknown in 2008 too. Of course that also may have worked to his advantage, not having the baggage that Hillary had from her former First Lady role (I don't think she did anything as a Senator which caused her much static).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama wasn't an unknown in 2008. 

 

He was known as a future star who gave an inspiring keynote address at the previous DNC (in 2004).

Edited by The Evil Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.