Trump Card

Trend = difference between where you start and where you end. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Once again:

1) You pick a low enough point and anything looks good. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Your own words seem to belie your own words.

It's hilarious to see you Obama apologists engage in tortured attempts to deflect attention to almost any other issue rather than discuss failing policies.

Are any of you actually going to try to defend his economic agenda?

It's hilarious to see you Obama apologists engage in tortured attempts to deflect attention to almost any other issue rather than discuss failing policies.

Are any of you actually going to try to defend his economic agenda? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Why bother? PJ will just change the rules on what's important and what's not anyways.

It's hilarious to see you Obama apologists engage in tortured attempts to deflect attention to almost any other issue rather than discuss failing policies.

Are any of you actually going to try to defend his economic agenda? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Most of us learned that neat little slight of hand trick from the Bush Apologists. The very same ones who spent 8 long, miserable years doing their very best to deflect attention rather than discuss Dub's failed policies that came within a mere fraction of an inch from bringing the whole country down on 9/15/2008.

Apparently the Bush Apologists do not like it when they are reminded of their indiscretions!

I learned that little slight of hand trick from the Bush Apologists who for 8 long, miserable years attempted to deflect attention rather than discuss Dub's failing policies that came a mere fraction of an inch from bringing the whole house down on 9/15/2008.

Apparently the Bush Apologists do not like it when the shoe is on the other foot! Originally Posted by bigtex

Another cute attempt to engage in deflection, but you might try selling that somewhere else. I'm about the furthest thing imaginable from a "Bush apologist." In fact, I think his administration was an unmitigated disaster, inasmuch as federal spending increased from about $1.8 trillion to about $2.9 trillion on his watch. But even those levels didn't quite satisfy Obama and Pelosi's congress. Just look where we are now -- an annual spending level of about $3.7 trillion.

Note that nothing you have posted in this thread can reasonably be construed as a coherent defense of Obama's disastrous economic policies.

Perhaps that's because you can't articulate one?

We're not building a bridge to a more prosperous future; we're building one to the next crisis. Anyone who doesn't realize that is living in a fantasy land.

Note that nothing you have posted in this thread can reasonably be construed as a coherent defense of Obama's disastrous economic policies.

Perhaps that's because you can't articulate one? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

There is no one posting on these pages, including you and I, capable of articulating a sound financial plan for this country! Quite frankly, there is no one size fits all for the nations economy. It is much too complex.

As for you not being a Bush Apologist, I was not necessarily pointing a finger directly at you but if the shoe fits.......well you know the drill!

As for Obama's economic policies, the jury is still out. Has the Obama financial team pulled all of the right strings? I seriously doubt it! Have they pulled enough right strings to keep our nation's financial ship from sinking? It appears that might be the case but we will not know with any degree of certainty for a while! It was no accident that the nation's economy nearly collapsed on 9/15/2008. It took years of the Busy Administrations failed economic policies for 9/15/08 to occur. By the same token, it will take quite some time, possibly years, to dig our way out of the financial collapse left behind by GW. Unfortunately, we can not snap our fingers and all of a sudden our economy will recover! It just does not work that way.

I can say without hesitation the economy is in better shape today than it was on the day Obama took over from GW. Will it continue to grow? We shall see. My prediction, if the economy continues to grow during the next 18 months, Obama will be very difficult to beat in November of 2012. If not, he better hope that either Sarah Palin or Donald Trump will separate themselves from the rest of the Republican field. Otherwise, Obama will be vulnerable to a viable Republican candidate. It goes without saying that I do not feel that either Palin or Trump are viable candidates for POTUS!

At least that is my take on the matter!

Since we are into the economy, debt, and spending, I'd like to know where y'all stand from a broad economic view.

Some charts to reference. (Argue if you believe they are inaccurate)
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_history

- Transfer to state and local (Blue)
- Federal direct spending (Red)
- State direct spending (Green)
- Local direct spending (Gray)

What level of federal spending in relation to GDP is your target?
State and local?
Deficit policy (e.g acceptable annual deficit as a percentage of GDP)

Federal: no more than 15% of GDP
State and local: no more than additional 15% of GDP
Deficit policy: Balanced budget, but not a large surplus. We've got the debt we've got, and we'll just have to service it to term. As we seem to be at constant war, supplemental war spending counts towards any deficit policy.

It's hilarious to see you Obama apologists engage in tortured attempts to deflect attention to almost any other issue rather than discuss failing policies.

Are any of you actually going to try to defend his economic agenda? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You should watch MSNBC. Most of their primetime lineup time is spent on Palin, Bachman or some relatively minor TEA party figure.

You should watch MSNBC. Most of their primetime lineup time is spent on Palin, Bachman or some relatively minor TEA party figure. Originally Posted by gnadfly

All MSNBC does is refute the stupid crap that ''Palin, Bachman or some relatively minor TEA party figure'' have spouted on Fox.

Both channels are a waste of time except if you want to know the POV of both fringes.

I do like Morning Joe and Dylan Patigan on MSNBC and Bill O on Fox and would like to bang a couple of the Fox chicks ......or at least stick something in their pretty little mouth. Those chicks need to stay as far away from a microphone as humanly possible.

Are any of you actually going to try to defend his economic agenda? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

What economic agenda? That's been my frustration....

If he'd articulate one...I'd be happy to defend it...or assail it...or defend in part & assail in part...as the case may be.

To the extent there is an economic agenda, it has struck me as little more than "finger in the dike" [no...not THAT dyke! That, at least, has the potential to be fun!! ] sort of operation from jump street. Either that, or, he's trying to be everything to everyone while only managing to annoy damn near everyone. Either way...

The Republicans made no bones about it from the beginning...their job #1 wasn't any sort of policy initiative of their own. It was simply ensuring Obama would be a one-term President. So far, he's played into their hands on the policy front. If they can also manage to field a candidate that's palatable to the "middle" [whatever the hell that is any more]...the lad's in deep kimchi...

To bring that full circle to the OP, I don't see the Donald being that guy. Too much of a lightening rod, I would think.

If the economy is good to decent when the election rolls around he will get re elected no matter who they run....if not he probably will be beaten no matter who the GOP nominates. The price of oil will probably be the determining factor. That is where Reagan and Clinton caught huge breaks. This country is set up for cheap oil. Period, end of story. Obama does not have much control over that. Maybe Captain Midnight or PJ can explain otherwise with some complicated economic policy! LOL

What the hell do you think a CEO does? Originally Posted by pjorourke

No, I have a pretty good idea what a CEO does. And doesn't do. I'm beginning to think, though, that a lot of people don't have a very good idea what a president does, or should do. That's why I cited the examples of strong national leaders. None of whom had business backgrounds, by the way. Note also that the last two presidents who claimed strong business backgrounds were Jimmy Carter and George W. ("I have an MBA") Bush.

What economic agenda? That's been my frustration.... Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Well, the main thrust of Obama's economic agenda seems to involve spending as much money as possible!

On that front, he certainly has succeeded. Even before he took office, he was pushing an $800 billion "stimulus" spending bill, claiming it was just the elixir the ailing economy needed. Of course, it was really just loaded up by congress with a bunch of payoffs to favored political constituencies. Obviously it was designed to be a political stimulus package, not an economic one.

As for Obama's economic policies, the jury is still out. Originally Posted by bigtex

The reason the jury is still out is that the economy is being artificially stimulated with negative real interest rates and massive quantities of unconventional monetary policy (QE). None of that is sustainable over the long term. I think there's a good chance it will work long enough to get Obama re-elected, but that's not a given. The next crisis (and there will be one; policy decisions have assured that) will, in my view, probably be more severe than the last one. When you build up pressure over an extended term and kick the can down the road with massive borrowing and money-printing, that tends to be the way it works. The first time a Treasury auction goes badly and is undersubscribed, the whole world will realize that we're in serious, serious trouble. Everything might appear to be OK until all of a sudden it isn't.

If we're lucky, we'll simply suffer something like Japan's "lost decade." There's little chance that we'll see sustained year-over-year GDP growth anything like what we saw in the '80s and '90s anytime soon. Big, entrenched increases in government spending make the economy worse, not better. History is very clear on that.

It took years of the Busy Administrations failed economic policies for 9/15/08 to occur. By the same token, it will take quite some time, possibly years, to dig our way out of the financial collapse left behind by GW. Originally Posted by bigtex

Yes, under any set of circumstances it would take time to recover from the balance sheet depression of 2007-09. But rather than set a course to "dig our way out" of the problem, Obama chose to dig an even deeper hole with bad policy prescriptions.

Recovering from our current mess will be very painful. No one is going to cut spending enough to significantly reduce the deficit, which now stands at about 11% of GDP. That's not even remotely possible politically. Once you pass out goodies and entitlement expansions, you can't just yank them. People would start rioting in the streets, like in Greece. And no one has the courage to impose the sort of European-level tax system needed to pay for all the largesse. That's another political non-starter.

I believe that taking action in some of these areas will eventually be forced, but that in the meantime -- for as long as it "works" -- we will simply try to print our way out of the problem. It may work -- for a while -- but it's a dangerous game that builds a bridge to a fiscal crisis, not to a more prosperous future.

To bring that full circle to the OP, I don't see the Donald being that guy. Too much of a lightening rod, I would think. Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Not only a lightning rod, but a self-aggrandizing clown. I don't think many people will vote for somebody like that.

I do think it's amazing, however, that despite the existence of so many left-leaning people in this forum, Trump decisively beat Obama in the recent poll thread.

I came too late to that thread, but would have voted "Fuck it, I'm going home to drink myself silly until 2016!"

(And I don't even drink that much.)

I came too late to that thread, but would have voted "Fuck it, I'm going home to drink myself silly until 2016!"

(And I don't even drink that much.) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You don't have to drink much to get there Captain, you were already half ass silly!

Trump is a dip shit but, I think he would make a good president. We need somebody to make some sound decisions like telling other countries to kiss off. We need to make the trade more fair and I think he will do that.

Like if they want $109.00 per barrel of oil that's fine our bushel of corn is sell for $55.00 per bushel now if you want the corn cheaper drop the price of your oil.

We have to cut the pork spending on bull shit that ALL the congress and house does.

We have to stop the welfare and put a limit on it like two years then you can't draw it for 10 years.
If you have a medical problem that will allow you to draw it, but just because your lazy tough shit get a job.

This is America stop trying to change it if you weren't born here and you don't like it then go back to your county, if you can't speak English learn it are leave.

I think this is the message Trump is saying, America Was the greatest nation in the world now look at it, we need somebody to make hard changes and I don't see anybody else that is doing that.

As for the birth certificate Obama HAS NOT show a true one as a matter of fact he has spent over $2 million so nobody can hunt for it because he was NOT born here.

All the people that vote for him wanted change Well you got it but I don't think we can take another term of his changes, we need some one else.

I think Trump is full of crap with some of the stuff he has pulled But I think he would be better than anybody else that is running.

Huckabee would be good but he don't have a Snow Balls chance to win.

Well thats my two cents worth.