Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 230: Not a racist bone spur in his body

(+) Yeah! (+)

Xeybozn posted...

What does "run the country like a business" even mean, anyway? I'd assume that means the government should make a profit, but the only ways to do that are to raise taxes, make huge cuts in government services without corresponding tax cuts, or start profit-driven wars with other nations. All of these are very unpopular ideas, but most Americans seem to support the idea the the government should be more like a business.

Its the same thing as Make America Great Again. Its a vague, open-ended statement that the listener/reader can attach any meaning to in order to justify his or her (mostly his) support.

Meanwhile, when Trump DOES get his slogans going for concrete things, they strangely enough have nothing to do with economic anxiety or building a strong economy in general. Build the Wall, Lock Her Up, Drain the Swamp, Send Her Back. Theyre all chants designed to attack some breed of enemy. Is it any wonder that conservatives have become increasingly violent since Trump gave their racist beliefs mainstream credibility?
---

Xeybozn posted...

What does "run the country like a business" even mean, anyway? I'd assume that means the government should make a profit, but the only ways to do that are to raise taxes, make huge cuts in government services without corresponding tax cuts, or start profit-driven wars with other nations. All of these are very unpopular ideas, but most Americans seem to support the idea the the government should be more like a business.

Means economy is King. Lower corporate tax rates. Make it more economical to produce in the United States than elsewhere. Boost business and protect it when unfairly competed against. Etc.
---

Bush
2000 Deficit $236 billion surplus
2001 $128 surplus
2002 $158 deficit
2003 $378 deficit
2004 $413 deficit
2005 $318 deficit
2006 $248
2007 $161
2008 $459
Obama
2009 $1413
2010 $1294
2011 $1300
2012 $1087
2013 $679
2014 $485
2015 $438
Trump
2016 $585
2017 $665
2018 $779
---

Corrik7 posted...

Obama
2009 $1413
2010 $1294
2011 $1300
2012 $1087
2013 $679
2014 $485
2015 $438

but democrats should have criticized obama for the deficit going up??
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik7 posted...

Obama
2009 $1413
2010 $1294
2011 $1300
2012 $1087
2013 $679
2014 $485
2015 $438

but democrats should have criticized obama for the deficit going up??

7 highest deficits in all of history out of his 8 years at the time. 8th year slightly being lower than 8th for 9th place.

Now granted inflation will cause some higher numbers as well.

But

At acting like Obama deficits were pretty.
---

The argument as I understand it is that he needed to have high deficits in order to get the US out of the recession, and then after that he reduced spending and returned the deficit to normal levels.

Which, if the initial assumption is true, to me it seems reasonable to claim that Obama had good deficit numbers.
---

pyresword posted...

The argument as I understand it is that he needed to have high deficits in order to get the US out of the recession, and then after that he reduced spending and returned the deficit to normal levels.

Which, if the initial assumption is true, to me it seems reasonable to claim that Obama had good deficit numbers.

This is actually the first time I have ever heard anyone on either side say that Obama had good deficit numbers.

Usually they say yeah but handwave the reasoning. But, to say they were good. That's interesting. The only years even on that level were the WW2 years and aftermath (which to be fair trounce the Obama deficits greatly in comparison).

Source I am looking at btw: https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306
---

Why do you think Trump is running it back up again instead of continuing the trend under Obama?
---

Also for some reason you gave 2016 to Trump instead of Obama even though it makes Obama look worse
---

obama had to deal with the worst recession since the '30s, you can't really directly compare that to the trump era. apples and oranges.
---

pyresword posted...

The argument as I understand it is that he needed to have high deficits in order to get the US out of the recession, and then after that he reduced spending and returned the deficit to normal levels.

Which, if the initial assumption is true, to me it seems reasonable to claim that Obama had good deficit numbers.

When you consider that the government was forced to spike the deficit to solve the worst recession since the 1930s and account for the true costs of the Iraq/Afghanistan war, pulling it all the way back down to where it was before those things happened is pretty good.

Don't worry the Republicans will balance the budget by...

*checks notes*

...not paying 9/11 First Responders healthcare care.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Why do you think Trump is running it back up again instead of continuing the trend under Obama?

I think Trump has a different philosophy than many regarding the deficit. Just as Obama clearly had a different one when trying to get out of the recession (as we see nothing like his % deficits prior in non-wartime). Should be pointed out I am mostly referring to his first term deficits in comparison to never seen before non-wartime deficits.

Trump's deficits in a % seem about average of history from 1975 to 1993ish. Maybe even slightly below the average. But, he made it clear his philosophy regarding the economy was this didn't matter but instead makes sense to do because the number itself matters not. Just the debt ratio.

Whether he is right or wrong? I don't know. I'd rather be debt free personally. I doubt America ever will be though.

You could also argue he is running up deficits to get results during the first term as arguably Obama did in order to win re-election then he would drop them off in a 2nd term as he accomplished what he was aiming for.

You could also argue that Obama's deficits dropped because he had a split government with a republican house and Senate.

You could argue a lot of things. But, arguing Obama's deficits numbers were good is definitely nothing I have seen before.
---

Why compare to non-wartime?

The entire Obama administration was in wartime.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Why compare to non-wartime?

The entire Obama administration was in wartime.

...

Non-WW2 War time. Better?

Those are the only years worse deficit wise than Obama's 1st term.
---

Well my only real claim is that the numbers appear consistent with the hypothesis I mentioned. I'm not knowledgeable enough about this to claim that there aren't other explanations or that he shouldn't have done anything differently.

Also--and this one is my fault--but to me the claim is not exactly "Obama had good numbers" (which is what I mistakenly said). A better statement would be something like "Obama made good decisions regarding spending and the deficit".
---

Also, while we're on this topic, I'd like to remind everybody that this administration is pulling all of the "the economy is in trouble!!!" Levers (tax cuts, huge deficit spending, interest rate decreases, etc) despite the economy supposedly being so great.

So, what is the government going to be able to do about things when the next downturn does hit, whether that's this year, next year, or a few years down the line?

Xeybozn posted...

What does "run the country like a business" even mean, anyway? I'd assume that means the government should make a profit, but the only ways to do that are to raise taxes, make huge cuts in government services without corresponding tax cuts, or start profit-driven wars with other nations. All of these are very unpopular ideas, but most Americans seem to support the idea the the government should be more like a business.

It means to run the government for the benefit of the shareholders, which would be the citizens. It may or may not involve turning a profit - it all depends on what the shareholders want and what would be in their best interest. Some very successful businesses record no profits on their books and still manage to reward their shareholders with rising stock prices, because they are investing for the future and that builds value. If you want aggressive growth, you probably invest in this kind of company. Other companies pay a lot of dividends. And if you want a steady income stream, you're more likely to invest in that kind of company.

But what distinguishes running the government like a business and not doing so is that a good business is run without regard for ideology and virtue. If an ideology has a good idea, it can be used, but a president running the government like a business isn't going to say, "we have to cut spending because I'm a Republican and the party catechism says so." No, he will make an honest analysis of what would be best and if that means increasing spending, then so be it.
---

Reg posted...

Also, while we're on this topic, I'd like to remind everybody that this administration is pulling all of the "the economy is in trouble!!!" Levers (tax cuts, huge deficit spending, interest rate decreases, etc) despite the economy supposedly being so great.

So, what is the government going to be able to do about things when the next downturn does hit, whether that's this year, next year, or a few years down the line?

By that time, we may have a Democratic president. They'll take all the blame for Great Depression 3 and we'll get Republican control of the country for 40 years afterward.
---

And what if the shareholders want the government to be run with regard for ideology and virtue?
---

pyresword posted...

And what if the shareholders want the government to be run with regard for ideology and virtue?

Then they can vote for that!
---

https://twitter.com/AJentleson/status/1153430147007205377

Thanks Chuck and Nancy, very cool!
---

It's a 2 year budget deal that they found acceptable and the "gotcha" is that the provisions in it expire in 2 years?
---

Also gotta love when the Trump tweet is blatantly not actually authored by Trump.
---

My favorite recent Trump tweet is this one:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1153281479184658433?s=20

Research? Would I accept research from outside sources? Come on!
---

Not a good idea to fuck around with the debt limit. If the US fails to pay its debt it'll set off a global financial catastrophe.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Not a good idea to fuck around with the debt limit. If the US fails to pay its debt it'll set off a global financial catastrophe.

Republicans are going to do so as soon as it's a Democrat president though. We all know it.

Reg posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Not a good idea to fuck around with the debt limit. If the US fails to pay its debt it'll set off a global financial catastrophe.

Republicans are going to do so as soon as it's a Democrat president though. We all know it.

And as a bonus, it will really up our leverage for the trade wars. Sounds like a win-win!
---

Some advice to AOC - stop associating with the rest of the Squad before they tarnish your good reputation. You don't want to known as a left wing nutjob.
---

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1153443510122700800

Oh, for fuck's sake
---

red sox 777 posted...

Some advice to AOC - stop associating with the rest of the Squad before they tarnish your good reputation. You don't want to known as a left wing nutjob.

and yet you don't mind being associated with every post you make
---

https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1153369800674091009/photo/1

Wow UBI is even less popular than reparations (within error bars)
---

wow the death penalty has more support than I would have expected
---

Yeah that one was also surprising (as were free college being at +10 and the huge unsure percentage for the Paris agreement).
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Yeah that one was also surprising (as were free college being at +10 and the huge unsure percentage for the Paris agreement).

Is it surprising to you that its that high or low?

Also wtf are these questions?

Decriminalizing illegal entry = bad?
Path to citizenship for illegal entry = good?

Also a wealth tax isnt a tax on income over a million dollars, its a tax on assets.

That being said, the fact that 34% of Americans are against income taxes over a million is insane.
---

what if they become a millionaire tho
---

I thought free college would be a little underwater (maybe like -5 or something).

And yeah the poll's definition of a wealth tax is wrong. The "free healthcare for illegal immigrants" one is also a dumb question, though I guess it was asked because they for some reason asked about that in the debate?
---

US citizen detained by border patrol for three weeks (and did not release him after his mother showed them his birth certificate):
https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/1153492416642654211
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Yeah that one was also surprising (as were free college being at +10 and the huge unsure percentage for the Paris agreement).

Is it surprising to you that its that high or low?

Also wtf are these questions?

Decriminalizing illegal entry = bad?
Path to citizenship for illegal entry = good?

Also a wealth tax isnt a tax on income over a million dollars, its a tax on assets.

That being said, the fact that 34% of Americans are against income taxes over a million is insane.

I guess people support granting them citizenship and sending them to jail? Seems kind of sadistic...
---

all you have to do to understand those results is know that americans respond wildly different to the exact same thing phrased slightly different. most people are absolute rubes whose political thought is a mishmash of reactionary contradiction. asking which candidates people support tells you a lot more "useful" information than which policies they support, as far as outcomes of voting.

but I am not suprised at all that UBI is polling extremely low. It is a techbro policy that neither party has been pushing, the right hates handouts, the center/left love means testing policies, and the far left sees UBI as a trojan horse for a destruction of the social safety net.

LordoftheMorons posted...

US citizen detained by border patrol for three weeks (and did not release him after his mother showed them his birth certificate):
https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/1153492416642654211

As with every other time the US has carried out mass deportations: it's intentional. It's why there's no due process (well, one reason).
---

red sox 777 posted...

Some advice to AOC - stop associating with the rest of the Squad before they tarnish your good reputation. You don't want to known as a left wing nutjob.

the right thought she was a left-wing nutjob long before she associated with the rest of the squad
---

Dont act like conservatives have respected AOC up till now you macaroon

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Some advice to AOC - stop associating with the rest of the Squad before they tarnish your good reputation. You don't want to known as a left wing nutjob.

the right thought she was a left-wing nutjob long before she associated with the rest of the squad

She is. And always has been.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbySdh66npI" data-time="
---

You use that clip way too much. He just proved you right!
---

i only use that clip when it applies to a post.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1153369800674091009/photo/1

Wow UBI is even less popular than reparations (within error bars)

This poll should be taken with a mountain of salt. The gun question is super misleading, as AK-47s and AR15s amount to like 1% of all "semi-automatic" weapons in the US. And "assault guns" isn't a thing.

Also LMFAO at their definition of the Green New Deal.
---

Oh boy. Boris time

What a great era we live in
---