Are you seriously arguing that people might as well simply make up a false reality, vigorously defend it, and use it to attack others because the truth no longer matters?
Would you advocate that behavior if the liberal posters here were engaging in it?
I wasn’t aware that I made any argument at all in my brief post, let alone one as convoluted and detailed as you suggest.
I wasn’t aware that I advocated any behavior at all in my post.
That was a completely unsuccessful attempt at putting words in my mouth and then trying to get me to defend them, btw.
Then tell us exactly what you did mean by that post. Please don’t try any “my words were clear” evasions. Obviously they weren’t.
My words were clear: neither side is likely to present any numbers that will convince the other of anything.
If you want something from me, the way to get it is not by stuffing words into my mouth and then demanding that I defend them, nor is it to demand that I give you something: I owe you nothing.
Your opening salvo of belligerence coupled with your admitted failure to understand doesn’t exactly leave me feeling like our side conversation is even worth continuing: your default when presented with something you don’t understand appears to be anger and an attempt to exert control. :rolleyes: I’m sure you can carry on that conversation alone, if you feel you need to.
So what? Presenting actual facts and refuting false statements is entirely independent of whether it persuades the poster of falsehoods. He or she is not the only reader.
Your statement is not merely ridiculous: it utterly failed to convince me that you were right in posting it. Apparently by your logic that means you should never have posted it at all. This is self-refuting nonsense.
Pointing out that nonsense is nonsense is the point of this board, along with refuting ludicrous false narratives. Demanding that posters back up their assertions is equally mandatory, along with criticizing them for not doing so. I don’t feel any of that is a futile endeavor. I plan to continue doing so in great profusion, given the nonsense that is so frequently posted here.
How’s them for clear words?
Pro-tip: If you don’t want to be laughed at, quote a Real News source, not Faxke News. I quit reading after the first paragraph:
"After eight years of stagnation, the economy is doing quite well under President Trump "
@ Silver lining — examine this graph of unemployment. Can you tell us where the “eight years of stagnation” suddenly turned into boom?
The S&P 500 Index tripled under Obama; the NASDAQ Composite Index more than quadrupled under Obama.
@ Silver lining — Do you consider this stock market performance to be “stagnation”?
It’s true that if you feed a hyper-active child sugar (or inject adrenalin into a tired patient) you can get a further boost. The tax cut with deficits already at record levels can be compared with such adrenalin.
@ Silver lining — Do you consider the stimulating effects of such incautious tax cuts to be a sign of genius? As though mainstream economists were unaware they would have this result?
I’m sincerely curious what Silver lining’s answers would be to these questions. (I don’t anticipate any response, however.)
He may be right about one thing though. With Sean Hannity and the others at the Fake News store blaring lies to serve their pimps, many American voters will ignore all facts and common-sense and pull the election levers for more insanity. MAGA!
It’s also worth noting that in 2016 Trump characterized the booming stock market as a “dangerous bubble” which demonstrated that Obama was a terrible president. Strangely, in 2017 the even more boominger stock market magically became evidence of what a brilliant president Trump was, according to Trump.
Also according to Trump and FoxNews:
Unemployment rate under Obama: Fake numbers! Probably actually 40%!
Unemployment rate under Trump, using the same metrics: Best unemployment figures ever!
More on the ongoing war with Eastasia, after the commercial break…
Buy stuff! Our military leadership expresses cautious optimism, suggesting that the next six months will be crucial…
Reagan reformed things during his presidency. Did he accumulate debt? Yes.
Obama has accumulated more debt than ALL presidents combined. A rather dubious accomplishment that shall be part of his legacy.
And for those in doubt Obama’s tenure had the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression, you can look that up. Don’t quote Fox news. Do you own homework, you’ll see. Then you can wonder why the news your watching chooses to omit such facts.
Meanwhile, unemployment is 14 states is at an all-time low. African American Unemployment and Latino Unemployment at an all-time low. See what happens when Jobs are created here? More people employed, more people paying taxes, more exporting, etc…
Septums,
I recently quoted MSN on Obama’s saying one thing and doing another with Iran in a different thread. Does that one count, only because is MSN?
Withdrawing from a debate is actually the weakest form of debating. I was told this board, though heavily left-leaning is full of intellectuals examining the facts. If you don’t like the source, the onus is on you to show us why.
You see, not all news agency such as CNN, Or NBC openly report facts as they have a narrative which doesn’t exactly report everything. This is why Fox News, much to your chagrin has value and is popular.
As for Trump, he’s credited for this economic boom for his P.T. Barnum like enthusiasm for the USA and business, cutting burdensome regulations, and lower our corporate tax rate to a level more in line with what other nations are paying. He might also level the playing field a bit with our trade deficit, which in my opinion will ultimately create more jobs here.
You know, repeating discredited lies over and over doesn’t make them more true, nor convince people who aren’t willfully or congenitally credulous.
Fox News is popular exactly for the reason that is often attributed to PT Barnum: There’s a fool born every minute. Trump is a vile swine with low intellect, but even he knows that he can fool some of the people (~63M) all of the time.
Yet you were putting him up earlier as a shining example of not accumulating debt.
Is it the word “terrible” that makes your argument valid? Well, by all means, please enlighten us as to what debt counts as terrible, and what debt is merely acknowledged as the cost of “reform”.
And, since we’re discussing this, why did you ignore the other point I made?
I ask again, Does a President take responsibility for the economy from day 1? If so, do we blame Reagan for the recession during his first few years? If not, do we still count the debt that was run up to get us out of the Great Recession against Obama?
This seems like a very strange comparison to make. Are you sure you are using the right historical person?
I’m curious why you quoted my post of questions when you were unable to even attempt an answer to a single one of the questions. All you did with your post is to misspell my name and liken your hero to a carnival huckster.
You can try to evaluate Trump’s economic program by examining past results OR by predicting future results. When, under questioning, you’re unable to defend your claim but instead shift attention from past to future, or vice versa, that’s an admission that you’ve got nothing.
Which is probably the most accurate thing he has said.
It is because Silver Lining follows the alt-right playbook, of which, the first rule is never play defense. Simply ignore, attack and make the other side defend. Defense requires keen thinking skills, facts, etc. something that the alt-right does not have in spades.
I’m surprised he hasn’t learned to say, “I’m not getting into a back and forth with you. I’ll just refer you to external counsel.”
To be clear, the actual right-wing talking point is that Obama added more debt than all previous presidents combined. It is false. I am now going to give you the actual numbers so that you will never be able to say this again without lying.
All numbers will come from TreasuryDirect dot gov, a website maintained by the U.S. Treasury. All numbers represent the total national debt outstanding on the specified date, are in billions, and are rounded to the nearest billion. If one wants to double check the numbers, here are some starting points:
https://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm
Here we go!
Barack Obama
1-20-2009 $10,627
1-20-2017 $19,947
9-30-2009 $11,910
9-30-2017 $20,245
Did Obama add more to the national debt than all other previous presidents combined, by time in office? No. (88% increase)
By fiscal year? No, not even close. (70% increase)
George W. Bush
1-20-2001 $ 5,728
1-20-2009 $10,627
9-30-2001 $ 5,807
9-30-2009 $11,910
Did Bush add more to the national debt than all other previous presidents combined, by time in office? No. (86% increase)
By fiscal year? Yes! (105% increase)
Ronald Reagan
1-31-1981 $ 934
1-31-1989 $2,698
9-30-1981 $ 998
9-30-1989 $2,857
Did Reagan add more to the national debt than all other previous presidents combined, by (approximate) time in office? Yes. (189% increase)
By fiscal year? Yes. (186% increase)
So, there are the numbers. Feel free to argue with any of my calculations or logic. But, as it stands, the statement “Barack Obama added more to the debt than all previous presidents combined” is false.
Obama may have borrowed and spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a fiscal stimulus that I think was misguided, but at least he had the excuse of following pretty standard counter-cyclical Keynesian economic theory. He was taking the advice of some very well regarded economists.
Trump, on the other hand, is borrowing and spending at a time when the economy is still on the upwards slope of a recovery. By the time the bill works its way fully into the economy it may be just in time to help inflate a bubble, not ease a recession.
In the meantime, if Republicanss are supposed to stand for anything it’s supposed to be for fiscal responsibility. Spend money wisely with proper oversight, spend reasonably within your means, and keep taxes as low as possible while meeting the true responsibilities of the government. And now they hold all three branches of government, and the result is… a violation of everything they proclaim to believe in. A trillion dollar deficit during an economic boom is insane. Now is the time to be reducing the debt, so that when the next recession comes the U.S. doesn’t run out of economic bullets and head to whatever the equivalent of Argentina’s way is when you’re the world’s reserve currency. Or what happens when suddenly you’re not the world’s reserve currency. Which, considering the way Trump has been antagonising allies and screwing with trade, becomes a more real possibility every day.
The net result of Trump and the Republican’s borrow and spend spree could easily be an overheated economy, which will require interest rates to rise. If that remains so for an extended period, the cost of U.S. debt service is going to blow up the budget even more. And this is just before a huge demographic group is going to leave the workforce and change from tax sources to tax sinks. Just super.
There is a hellacious amount of debt being held by the public, by municipal and state governments, corporations, you name it. If Trump drives interest rates up through borrowing, to quote Peter Cook, “There would be a lot of trouble.”
Here in Canada we could be especially boned. Trump’s tariff tantrum may put Canada into recession, just as the U.S. economy overheats, and after our own idiots in office spent us into oblivion with idiotic policies. So U.S. interest rates go up, and ours can’t. That could crash the Canadian Dollar.
I tell you, Trump is the only person on this planet outside of ISIS that could have put most Albertans on the side of Justin Trudeau in a spat against America. I don’t think Trump understands Canadians. This move of his isn’t sitting well here. He shouldn’t have been so quick to piss off his closest ally just because he doesn’t like our current leader or because he thinks he wields a big stick and can just break agreements and dictate new terms. He might even get his way if the economic consequences become harsh, but the more pain he inflicts the less support he is likely to find from the Canadian population in the future. That means our politicians will do the same. This is true also in all the other countries he is trying to put the screws to. This is doubly stupid during a time when populist nationalism is rearing its ugly head around the world again. I know! Let’s stir it up!
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this movie before. Is there somewhere I can get a refund?
