The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[AZGrizFan]

The ME will be a cesspool 1,000 years from now, whether we have troops there or not. As the largest oil producing nation on earth, we no longer need their oil. Pull every last troop out and let them go at it. No more American blood needs be spilled over that shithole.

[JohnStOnge]

A few more trading days left but as of now, if the the Dow had simply continued at the average percent increase per trading day characterizing it during the March 9, 2009 start of the Bull market through November 8, 2016 election day it'd close at 24,276 today. As I type it's at 22,134 and falling.

[mainejeff]

A few more trading days left but as of now, if the the Dow had simply continued at the average percent increase per trading day characterizing it during the March 9, 2009 start of the Bull market through November 8, 2016 election day it'd close at 24,276 today. As I type it's at 22,134 and falling.

Bring back Obama! The stock market is tanking with the #FakePresident at the helm.

[93henfan]

Woo hoo! The stock market suddenly matters to Democrats again!

[∞∞∞]

Woo hoo! The stock market suddenly matters to Democrats again!

It's always been important, but in a methodical and sustainable way.

Conservatives just aren't patient people though and their greed blinds them to long term solutions. Money above all. So once again the GOP was able to whip their constituents into a frenzy...even though the economy was humming along just fine (especially in a global context).

But hey, corporations and the rich got their tax cuts, companies bought back their shares, the separation between classes grew, and it was all done on the back of unsustainable borrowing against the nation's future.

And once again liberals, progressives, and moderates will have to come in and fix the issues with common sense, long-term solutions.

[dbackjon]

Woo hoo! The stock market suddenly matters to Democrats again!

It's always mattered to Democrats. Obama fixed Bush's horrid economy. Trump rode those coattails long enough before he screwed them up (remember - first year is still Obama's budget). The Dow is down overall since Trump's giveaway to corporations/rich.

But the Cult45ers like you will never acknowledge what FACTS show - the GOP breaks the economy, Democrats fix it, then the GOP breaks it again.

[CAA Flagship]

[93henfan]

It's hard to believe those last two posts were completed without a short in the keyboard from the uncontrollable laughter while drinking a beverage.

[UNI88]

It's always been important, but increases only count if a Democrat is President and drops only count if a Republican is President.

Edited for accuracy and integrity.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Grizalltheway]

Woo hoo! The stock market suddenly matters to Democrats again!

And suddenly it doesn't matter to Repubs and it's the Democrats' fault it's tanking anyway. Funny how that works.

[∞∞∞]

And don't forget the MASSIVE deficit increase...

Party of responsibility.

[UNI88]

And don't forget the MASSIVE deficit increase...

Party of responsibility.

Both parties are fiscally irresponsible. Conks give it campaign lip service but don't really care and Donks only pretend to care when Conks are on charge.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

And don't forget the MASSIVE deficit increase...

Party of responsibility.

Both parties are fiscally irresponsible. Conks give it campaign lip service but don't really care and Donks only pretend to care when Conks are on charge.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Actually it's more that older conks and donks voted for policies which borrowed against their children 's future to maintain a certain lifestyle.

Conks are just greedier about it. Donks at least throw some shade towards social services along with smaller deficits.

[93henfan]

Another harmonious Christmas Eve in the USA.

Let it all out, liberals. You won't be able to cry like this in three years when you're giving Old Glory the kill shot.

phpBB [video]

[Grizalltheway]

Not an argument

[JohnStOnge]

The stock market has mattered to me for quite some time. My retirement largely depends on it. Other stuff too. Like I've recently been involved in being a beneficiary in an estate trying to get things settled while the stock market is going down. And I am not happy when I see stuff like we've seen recently.

But what I'm seeing now, frankly, is what I expected to see earlier. Any person with a lick of sense should know that Trump being President of the United States is not good.

[kalm]

Both parties are fiscally irresponsible. Conks give it campaign lip service but don't really care and Donks only pretend to care when Conks are on charge.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Actually it's more that older conks and donks voted for policies which borrowed against their children 's future to maintain a certain lifestyle.

Conks are just greedier about it. Donks at least throw some shade towards social services along with smaller deficits.

And what’s disappointing is that moderate Dems or centrists like UNI88 have a tough time admitting that reaganomics/neoliberalism is a gigantic fail. Remember when the counter used to be to blame the Democratic Congress for spending and debt growth in the 1980’s? What will be the excuse for the last two years? Obama!

I’d like to think Trump served his purpose with tax cuts and SCOTUS appointments but then RBG has health problems again. That might buy him some more time.

[UNI88]

Actually it's more that older conks and donks voted for policies which borrowed against their children 's future to maintain a certain lifestyle.

Conks are just greedier about it. Donks at least throw some shade towards social services along with smaller deficits.

And what’s disappointing is that moderate Dems or centrists like UNI88 have a tough time admitting that reaganomics/neoliberalism is a gigantic fail. Remember when the counter used to be to blame the Democratic Congress for spending and debt growth in the 1980’s? What will be the excuse for the last two years? Obama!

I’d like to think Trump served his purpose with tax cuts and SCOTUS appointments but then RBG has health problems again. That might buy him some more time.

Trip's abdication of responsibility for the Donks is like a kid claiming "s/he started it!" At best, Donks are at least 40% responsible for our current deficit situation and if you wanted to be rational they're probably somewhere between 48-52% responsible with the Conks responsible for the other 48-52%. The point is that they pretty much equally share the blame. Trip isn't alone in trying to hoist responsibility on the other side, Conks do it just as much as Donks.

It's ironic that Trip is critical that "older conks and donks voted for policies which borrowed against their children 's future to maintain a certain lifestyle" when the social policies that he advocates for also carry a significant cost which would require the government to leverage the future to pay for the present.

It's disingenuous to claim that "Conks are just greedier about it. Donks at least throw some shade towards social services along with smaller deficits." when the reality is that both sides like to claim that they do what they do for the good of the country. Conks claim that they are favor focusing funding on defending the country while Donks claim that they favor focusing funding on social services that improve the lives of the less fortunate. Neither sides actions give any credence to the argument that they support smaller deficits. Conks throw money at the military but manipulate the funding to benefit their pet projects (defense contractors, bases and production in their districts, etc.). Donks throw money at growing government to provide more social services without bothering to determine how much of the money actually goes to helping people (and how much goes to the Byzantine bureaucracy) and how effective is the money. They appear to be more interested in creating dependency than self-dependence. Neither side is greedier or more patriotic than the other, they're all hypocrites.

How is my having "a tough time admitting that reaganomics/neoliberalism is a gigantic fail" any different than Trip having a tough time admitting that the socialism that he advocates for has failed over and over. Kalm, you've never been able to refute my theory that lower taxes encourages risk-taking and innovation and that as a result, Reaganomics fueled the technology boom of the 90's and that without it we might not have had Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc. The US is the great country we are because we've been able to out-innovate (not out-produce/efficient) the world. I fully support limited socialism but it's capitalism that fuels the innovation and provides the funding for the social programs that work in the Scandinavian countries. Take away capitalism as many alt-lefties want and you end up with a soviet socialist republic model that has failed miserably. I have yet to see a convincing argument for why it will be different this time.

[93henfan]

[JohnStOnge]

At best, Donks are at least 40% responsible for our current deficit situation and if you wanted to be rational they're probably somewhere between 48-52% responsible with the Conks responsible for the other 48-52%. The point is that they pretty much equally share the blame.

I think the Democrats responsible for way more than 52%. I think that if Republicans had been in total control of government since around 1900 we might not have a deficit at all right now. I think national debt would be minimal. We'd also live in a totally different world. I don't think there would be things like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In my opinion the Democrats built the paradigm whereby people look at the Federal government as there to ensure each individual's personal well being. And that's the root cause of the large deficits and the large national debt.

I think the problem with Republicans is that they don't have the courage to rock the boat in that regard. The American public has become accustomed to massive, involved Federal government. That, I think, fosters Republican dishonesty. Like for instance telling people that their last tax cut would be revenue neutral or positive because of economic growth when every structured analysis indicated that was not likely. If they were going to cut taxes they should've had the guts to say they had to cut spending in order to adjust for what the liekly outcome would be. But they didn't. They rail against deficits but their actual actions exacerbate the problem.

[kalm]

And what’s disappointing is that moderate Dems or centrists like UNI88 have a tough time admitting that reaganomics/neoliberalism is a gigantic fail. Remember when the counter used to be to blame the Democratic Congress for spending and debt growth in the 1980’s? What will be the excuse for the last two years? Obama!

I’d like to think Trump served his purpose with tax cuts and SCOTUS appointments but then RBG has health problems again. That might buy him some more time.

Trip's abdication of responsibility for the Donks is like a kid claiming "s/he started it!" At best, Donks are at least 40% responsible for our current deficit situation and if you wanted to be rational they're probably somewhere between 48-52% responsible with the Conks responsible for the other 48-52%. The point is that they pretty much equally share the blame. Trip isn't alone in trying to hoist responsibility on the other side, Conks do it just as much as Donks.

It's ironic that Trip is critical that "older conks and donks voted for policies which borrowed against their children 's future to maintain a certain lifestyle" when the social policies that he advocates for also carry a significant cost which would require the government to leverage the future to pay for the present.

It's disingenuous to claim that "Conks are just greedier about it. Donks at least throw some shade towards social services along with smaller deficits." when the reality is that both sides like to claim that they do what they do for the good of the country. Conks claim that they are favor focusing funding on defending the country while Donks claim that they favor focusing funding on social services that improve the lives of the less fortunate. Neither sides actions give any credence to the argument that they support smaller deficits. Conks throw money at the military but manipulate the funding to benefit their pet projects (defense contractors, bases and production in their districts, etc.). Donks throw money at growing government to provide more social services without bothering to determine how much of the money actually goes to helping people (and how much goes to the Byzantine bureaucracy) and how effective is the money. They appear to be more interested in creating dependency than self-dependence. Neither side is greedier or more patriotic than the other, they're all hypocrites.

How is my having "a tough time admitting that reaganomics/neoliberalism is a gigantic fail" any different than Trip having a tough time admitting that the socialism that he advocates for has failed over and over. Kalm, you've never been able to refute my theory that lower taxes encourages risk-taking and innovation and that as a result, Reaganomics fueled the technology boom of the 90's and that without it we might not have had Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc. The US is the great country we are because we've been able to out-innovate (not out-produce/efficient) the world. I fully support limited socialism but it's capitalism that fuels the innovation and provides the funding for the social programs that work in the Scandinavian countries. Take away capitalism as many alt-lefties want and you end up with a soviet socialist republic model that has failed miserably. I have yet to see a convincing argument for why it will be different this time.

"Might" being the key word. Supply side is based on a whole bunch of "might".

None of this refutes Trips claim. Deficits have been better under donk admins in my lifetime than conks. Conks have fought to reduce social spending at the detriment of the middle class. You can connect all the dots you'd like relating to Reagan economic policies leading to innovation but it's not as though we lacked innovation when tax rates were much higher. You also need to acknowledge the economic benefits of social spending. For example, a healthier workforce and a more educated/trained workforce increase productivity.

Where we agree is the driving force of competition brought by capitalism. I'm not anti-capitalist in the least and I'm guessing neither is Trip. On the contrary, I think a vibrant middle class has the potential to increase innovation, growth, and risk taking. A neccessitous man is more risk averse and less entrepreneurial if he's worried about his future and the threat of losing his job through catastrophic health problems or a stock market crash wiping clean his retirement fund.

It's a matter of balance and I haven't been convinced that increased social spending will kill innovation and growth. Competition killing monopolies (and I fully acknowledge government can be included here), financial deregulation, and crony capitalism pose a threat as well.

[JohnStOnge]

How is my having "a tough time admitting that reaganomics/neoliberalism is a gigantic fail" any different than Trip having a tough time admitting that the socialism that he advocates for has failed over and over. Kalm, you've never been able to refute my theory that lower taxes encourages risk-taking and innovation and that as a result, Reaganomics fueled the technology boom of the 90's and that without it we might not have had Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc. The US is the great country we are because we've been able to out-innovate (not out-produce/efficient) the world. I fully support limited socialism but it's capitalism that fuels the innovation and provides the funding for the social programs that work in the Scandinavian countries. Take away capitalism as many alt-lefties want and you end up with a soviet socialist republic model that has failed miserably. I have yet to see a convincing argument for why it will be different this time.

I think what Trip may favor along with politicians like Bernie Sanders is the Nordic Model (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/i ... d-cons.asp). That, I think is what they are talking about when they use terminology like "Democratic Socialism." Conservatives call it "Socialism" too until it comes time to make the argument that socialism has never worked. That's because the Nordic model has worked well. It's no for me. I don't want the United States to adopt it. But in material terms it's worked well.

Also I think we're getting to a point where China is an example of a successful Socialist country. It's not a good place as far as human rights and freedom of expression go. But it's pretty darned successful in economic terms.

[CID1990]

It's not a good place as far as human rights and freedom of expression go. But it's pretty darned successful in economic terms.

Otherwise known as "well-run totalitarianism"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

It's not a good place as far as human rights and freedom of expression go. But it's pretty darned successful in economic terms.

Otherwise known as "well-run totalitarianism"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In my youth, it was the “Yugoslavia model.”

[AZGrizFan]

At best, Donks are at least 40% responsible for our current deficit situation and if you wanted to be rational they're probably somewhere between 48-52% responsible with the Conks responsible for the other 48-52%. The point is that they pretty much equally share the blame.

I think the Democrats responsible for way more than 52%. I think that if Republicans had been in total control of government since around 1900 we might not have a deficit at all right now. I think national debt would be minimal. We'd also live in a totally different world. I don't think there would be things like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In my opinion the Democrats built the paradigm whereby people look at the Federal government as there to ensure each individual's personal well being. And that's the root cause of the large deficits and the large national debt.

I think the problem with Republicans is that they don't have the courage to rock the boat in that regard. The American public has become accustomed to massive, involved Federal government. That, I think, fosters Republican dishonesty. Like for instance telling people that their last tax cut would be revenue neutral or positive because of economic growth when every structured analysis indicated that was not likely. If they were going to cut taxes they should've had the guts to say they had to cut spending in order to adjust for what the liekly outcome would be. But they didn't. They rail against deficits but their actual actions exacerbate the problem.

Social security is NOT THEIR MONEY.