America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

Reagan presided over a booming economy and the personal computer revolution, which I will directly compare to the dot.com revolution, (with the personal computer revolution winning in terms of importance) and yet despite this, he still managed to add 1.86 Trillion to the deficit, a 186% increase from the 998 Billion left over from the Carter administration. A lot of presidents have presided over booming economies yet still added to the deficit, Bill Clinton however did not. And you're still not giving any credit to Clinton's tax policies that helped fuel the dotcom revolution in the first place.

It's also worth mentioning that I am not arguing that Bill Clinton was a good example of a fiscal conservative, that was never my point at all, but the fact is, he was the last fiscal conservative to hold the office of the POTUS. Every administration since Clinton has not only added to the deficit, but also outspent the previous administration by large percentages. And so far Trump looks like he will continue this abhorrent trend, which is exactly what we don't need.

Yea I'm not sure anyone credits the boom during the clinton years as resulting from tax policy. Probably because it didn't come from that. I agreed with you that Clinton is notable for being an exception to the rule, which is that every administration out-spends any growth in revenue they have.

Reagan had something to content with that Clinton did not, the USSR. That's not an easy comparison to make.

 

[DDastardly00]

Yea I'm not sure anyone credits the boom during the clinton years as resulting from tax policy. Probably because it didn't come from that. I agreed with you that Clinton is notable for being an exception to the rule, which is that every administration out-spends any growth in revenue they have.

Reagan had something to content with that Clinton did not, the USSR. That's not an easy comparison to make.

The boom was going to happen anyway regardless of the tax policies of the Clinton Administration, but you can make a strong argument that the 1993 Budget bill, the 1997 Tax Relief Act, as well as other mitigating factors like appointing Alan Greenspan (who kept interest rates in check), etc, helped usher investments in the dot.coms along at an accelerated rate. And on the other side of this argument, The dot.com revolution is also given far too much credit for it's impact on the labor market, those rose-colored glasses and all....21.5 million new jobs were created while Clinton was president (the most ever under any US President in history), while the Tech Sector accounted for only 8% of those new jobs. The economy was in a Boom with or without the dot.com revolution, otherwise you would not have seen 19.78 million new jobs created in other sectors unrelated to tech.

Just as I would be wary of giving Clinton too much credit for the Boom, I would be equally wary of giving too much credit to the likes of Jeff Bezos or the Pierre Omidyar's of the world (something the Revisionists has no problem doing). In 1996-1999, the dot coms were still fledglings in the market. The majority of the 90's boom came from elsewhere.

 

[Danoff]

The boom was going to happen anyway regardless of the tax policies of the Clinton Administration, but you can make a strong argument that the 1993 Budget bill, the 1997 Tax Relief Act, as well as other mitigating factors like appointing Alan Greenspan (who kept interest rates in check), etc, helped usher investments in the dot.coms along at an accelerated rate. And on the other side of this argument, The dot.com revolution is also given far too much credit for it's impact on the labor market, those rose-colored glasses and all....21.5 million new jobs were created while Clinton was president (the most ever under any US President in history), while the Tech Sector accounted for only 8% of those new jobs.

Well the money flowing into the tech sector was also affecting other sectors. The economy is not segmented, it's all inter-related. Greenspan gets a lot of flack for the housing bubble, as does Clinton. The bubble didn't fully pop until Bush, but it started under Clinton. The .com boom, and the .com bubble, and the housing bubble, and the beanie baby bubble for that matter, were all going to happen without Clinton or Bush or Greenspan. I started this with the sentiment that Clinton was not responsible for his surplus, and he wasn't. He was responsible for not blowing it. Likewise, Bush and Obama were not responsible for the recession, they were responsible for responding to it with bad economics. Trump is not putting us on the right track with economic understanding either.

 

[DDastardly00]

Well the money flowing into the tech sector was also affecting other sectors. The economy is not segmented, it's all inter-related. Greenspan gets a lot of flack for the housing bubble, as does Clinton. The bubble didn't fully pop until Bush, but it started under Clinton. The .com boom, and the .com bubble, and the housing bubble, and the beanie baby bubble for that matter, were all going to happen without Clinton or Bush or Greenspan. I started this with the sentiment that Clinton was not responsible for his surplus, and he wasn't. He was responsible for not blowing it. Likewise, Bush and Obama were not responsible for the recession, they were responsible for responding to it with bad economics. Trump is not putting us on the right track with economic understanding either.

I would take a man like Rand Paul over a Trump/Bush/Clinton as POTUS any day, at least we would have a real fiscal conservative in office.

The scary thing about Trump's Ra-Ra-Ra, jobs-jobs-jobs, and his penchant for seeing the GDP over 4% every quarter is that we have seen this before and it led to inflation and a recession. In reality it's better to have a 2-3% steady GDP over a long consecutive time frame than it is to see rapid growth followed by a recoil. The pullback in the market we are seeing reflects exactly this.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I would take a man like Rand Paul over a Trump/Bush/Clinton as POTUS any day, at least we would have a real fiscal conservative in office.

The scary thing about Trump's Ra-Ra-Ra, jobs-jobs-jobs, and his penchant for seeing the GDP over 4% every quarter is that we have seen this before and it led to inflation and a recession. In reality it's better to have a 2-3% steady GDP over a long consecutive time frame than it is to see rapid growth followed by a recoil. The pullback in the market we are seeing reflects exactly this.

Unfortunately you stopped your Clinton research at GDP growth. Clinton achieved an average growth of just under 4% and it didn't lead to either inflation or recession as you've already indicated.

 

[Danoff]

I would take a man like Rand Paul over a Trump/Bush/Clinton as POTUS any day, at least we would have a real fiscal conservative in office.

The scary thing about Trump's Ra-Ra-Ra, jobs-jobs-jobs, and his penchant for seeing the GDP over 4% every quarter is that we have seen this before and it led to inflation and a recession. In reality it's better to have a 2-3% steady GDP over a long consecutive time frame than it is to see rapid growth followed by a recoil. The pullback in the market we are seeing reflects exactly this.

Boom and Bust cycles have been the talk of the world of economics for a long time, and it's something that world economies would all love to be able to smooth over. Everyone wants steadily increasing prosperity rather than well..

The problem is that it's human nature to have booms and busts. People spend and hire and invest when they think things are going well and going to pay off, and they pull back and fire and hoard when they think things are not going to pay off. We'd all love to tell everyone else to just knock it off, but they won't. A little bit of it is a cultural problem with the US. The US has a bit of a get-rich-quick culture. If things don't pan out quickly, dump it and find something else. We don't play a very long game here, but the long game is what really matters in reality.

You could argue that it's healthy to have these cycles, but I think a healthy business practice can be achieved without them.

 

[DDastardly00]

Unfortunately you stopped your Clinton research at GDP growth. Clinton achieved an average growth of just under 4% and it didn't lead to either inflation or recession as you've already indicated.

It led to the 2001 recession.


@ Danoff

Agreed, it's just the nature of the beast unfortunately.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It led to the 2001 recession.


@ Danoff

Agreed, it's just the nature of the beast unfortunately.

The causes of the 2001 mini recession are numerous. The Dotcom bust fueled by the Y2K scare, the Feds keeping interest rates high even in the face of declining growth, 9/11 and more. Still unemployment remained under 6%. I'll take 8 years of 4% growth if that little recession is all we have to worry about, something that likely could have been avoided had the Feds lowered the interest rates substantially to fuel borrowing and hence growth.

 

[Dotini]

The causes of the 2001 mini recession are numerous. The Dotcom bust fueled by the Y2K scare, the Feds keeping interest rates high even in the face of declining growth, 9/11 and more. Still unemployment remained under 6%. I'll take 8 years of 4% growth if that little recession is all we have to worry about, something that likely could have been avoided had the Feds lowered the interest rates substantially to fuel borrowing and hence growth.

2001 was a truly weird year in oh so many ways.
Paranoia, for one thing. All through the summer of 2001, Navy and Coast Guard patrol craft were seen in great numbers, racing furiously up and down Hood Canal and Puget Sound with men on deck strapped to big machine guns. Prior to that time there was seldom a patrol boat to be seen. Maybe one a day. They were ostensibly protecting Sub Base Kitsap and the ferry system. Lucky, resourceful Seattle was already in hysterics over the 12/99 WTO protests and the 6.8 Nisqually Earthquake of 2/01. At Boeing there was labor unrest over outsourcing and excess visas for foreign engineers.

 

[DK]

Anyone keeping up with the Rob Porter scandal? Christopher Wray, Director of the FBI speaking before the House Intelligence Committee, has denied the White House's position that they hadn't finished reviewing Porter when the allegations from his ex-wives of domestic abuse made headlines, stating that they finished their first investigation of him last July, which must be awkward for John Kelly considering he was publicly praising Porter last Thursday.

 

[TexRex]

Anyone keeping up with the Rob Porter scandal? Christopher Wray, Director of the FBI speaking before the House Intelligence Committee, has denied the White House's position that they hadn't finished reviewing Porter when the allegations from his ex-wives of domestic abuse made headlines, stating that they finished their first investigation of him last July, which must be awkward for John Kelly considering he was publicly praising Porter last Thursday.

And "Constipated Sarah"--making and using petty nicknames is fun--is sticking to her guns.

I like the way Trump has seesawed too, from defending* Porter to calling him a "sick puppy."

Most humorous, though, is the idea that Porter himself said, to investigators, something along the lines of "Hey, so uh, you may come across accusations that I beat the living daylights of my now ex-wife, and that it might not be an isolated incident. Just thought you, uh, ought to know. Pass the ketchup?"**

Edit:

*On Twitter.

**Paragraph contains hypothetical quote. Not to be taken literally.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And "Constipated Sarah"--making and using petty nicknames is fun--is sticking to her guns.

I like the way Trump has seesawed too, from defending Porter to calling him a sick puppy.

Most humorous, though, is the idea that Porter himself said, to investigators, something along the lines of "Hey, so uh, you may come across accusations that I beat the living daylights of my now ex-wife, and that it might not be an isolated incident. Just thought you, uh, ought to know. Pass the ketchup?"

I don't recall Trump defending Porter but it was a busy weekend. What exactly did he say in Porters defense? Do you have a link to those "something along the lines of" words that Porter shared with investigators?

 

[TexRex]

What exactly did he say in Porters defense?

To reporters: "He says he's innocent and I think you have to remember that." Adding: "It's been a tough time for Porter."

That could be called flimsy by someone looking for signs of actual support, so...

On Twitter: "Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused - life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?"

Coming from the guy who incited those "lock her up" chants regarding Clinton, seemingly disregarding due process, or what he apparently believes due process is, that's praise of the hughest order. I'd post the tweet itself, but [for whatever reason; it hasn't done this to me before] it's asking for my login to get to the point where I can share it, and I refuse to sign up. The tweet can be seen here, though.

Do you have a link to those "something along the lines of" words that Porter shared with investigators?

That could be difficult, as I heard of the notion--that he warned those performing the background check that they might discover these allegations--on the news (to say I can't go back into my browser history to find a link) seemingly very early on in this particular story's run, perhaps before the aforementioned support from Trump, even, and all current searches yield is content regarding events of the past several hours. But I'll see what I can dig up.

I will say, however, that the quote provided was a hypothetical one, hence the "the idea that he said something along the lines of" bit, wherein Porter made the remark in a nonchalant way over burgers and fries.

 

[Johnnypenso]

To reporters: "He says he's innocent and I think you have to remember that." Adding: "It's been a tough time for Porter."

That could be called flimsy by someone looking for signs of actual support, so...

On Twitter: "Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused - life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?"

Coming from the guy who incited those "lock her up" chants regarding Clinton, seemingly disregarding due process, or what he apparently believes due process is, that's praise of the hughest order. I'd post the tweet itself, but [for whatever reason; it hasn't done this to me before] it's asking for my login to get to the point where I can share it, and I refuse to sign up. The tweet can be seen here, though.

So if I understand correctly, not mentioning Porter's name in the tweet, nor making any presumption of innocence, and just asking for the matter to be adjudicated, now qualifies as support? Interesting.

That could be difficult, as I heard of the notion--that he warned those performing the background check that they might discover these allegations--on the news (to say I can't go back into my browser history to find a link) seemingly very early on in this particular story's run, perhaps before the aforementioned support from Trump, even, and all current searches yield is content regarding events of the past several hours. But I'll see what I can dig up.

I will say, however, that the quote provided was a hypothetical one, hence the "the idea that he said something along the lines of" bit, wherein Porter made the remark in a nonchalant way over burgers and fries.

Could be difficult maybe because you just made it up, like the thing about support? For future reference, "something along the lines of", to me anyway, usually means you heard a quote and can't remember the exact words but her you go, this is close. Also known as paraphrasing. Hypothetical is something completely different. Probably best not to mix and mingle the two.

You know, Trump says enough stupid stuff to fill his own Presidential library, if and when he gets one. There's really no need to make stuff up.

 

[TexRex]

So if I understand correctly, not mentioning Porter's name in the tweet, nor making any presumption of innocence, and just asking for the matter to be adjudicated, now qualifies as support? Interesting.

You're right; the allegation being referenced may well be that Snuffleupagus diddled Abby Cadabby with his trunk in the back room at Hooper's, and everyone* has misinterpreted Trump's motives.

*In no particular order:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/politics/rob-porter-trump/index.html

http://time.com/5152942/trump-tweet-misunderstands-due-process/

http://www.newsweek.com/white-house...-trumps-stance-rob-porter-rest-country-803383

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/10/16999198/trump-mere-allegation-rob-porter-due-process

Apparently even Fox News has it wrong too, which lends credibility to the claim that the response is ambiguous, because Fox News regularly gets it wrong...though that tends to be when what's right causes the conservative news engine to sputter and backfire; I love the smell of media bias in the morning.

These "misinterpretations" could be avoided by using a communication medium not restricted to 280 characters, but I can appreciate Trump's short attention span...it's common among children.

Could be difficult maybe because you just made it up, like the thing about support?

Yeaaaaaahhh...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rob-po...l-in-january-2017-about-his-background-check/

So much for the implication that I made it up. Though I admit I misremembered who "Punchy Porter"--just a little more fun with nicknames--alerted to the "potential" allegations. My bad...

For future reference, "something along the lines of", to me anyway, usually means you heard a quote and can't remember the exact words but her you go, this is close. Also known as paraphrasing. Hypothetical is something completely different. Probably best not to mix and mingle the two.

I'm well aware of convention, which is why my use of a qualifier ("idea") was deemed necessary.

Edit:

You know, Trump says enough stupid stuff to fill his own Presidential library, if and when he gets one.

Donald J. Trump Presidential Libary:

 

[Sanji Himura]

On Twitter: "Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused - life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?"

He may be wrong on anything else, but he is right here. In the day and age where a mere accusation could get a person fired from their jobs or, in the case of Roy Moore (the piece of trash that he is), their careers, is absolutely disgusting that the accused CAN NOT face their own accusers openly is very much a slap in the face of 200 years of American jurisprudence.

For example, if a woman that I knew 20 years ago was to accuse me of sexual misconduct, I would most certainly want to face my own accuser. That said, I would likely be branded a pervert in the press, but the point is that in today's day and age, I would likely be fired for the mere accusation without due process.

 

[TexRex]

He may be wrong on anything else, but he is right here. In the day and age where a mere accusation could get a person fired from their jobs or, in the case of Roy Moore (the piece of trash that he is), their careers, is absolutely disgusting that the accused CAN NOT face their own accusers openly is very much a slap in the face of 200 years of American jurisprudence.

For example, if a woman that I knew 20 years ago was to accuse me of sexual misconduct, I would most certainly want to face my own accuser. That said, I would likely be branded a pervert in the press, but the point is that in today's day and age, I would likely be fired for the mere accusation without due process.

Okay? I mean...did you only read the most recent post in the thread? I'm flattered that something I said deemed a response, but it seems to have been taken out of context.

To clarify, said tweet was referenced at the request of an individual who was ignorant of events that transpired.

Having said that, there are some positions that should not be held by someone with even mere allegations hanging over their head--that was the whole point of the background check. If an individual is to have access to information that, if leaked by way of extortion, could threaten national security in any way, that individual should not be susceptible to extortion.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Having said that, there are some positions that should not be held by someone with even mere allegations hanging over their head--that was the whole point of the background check. If an individual is to have access to information that, if leaked by way of extortion, could threaten national security in any way, that individual should not be susceptible to extortion.

That I will agree with, but even if I took the tweet out of context, the ultimate point remains that mere allegations are costing more people their jobs and careers than ever before. We no longer have Due Process when we can assassinate their character through the media. Just take a look at what happened to Kevin Spacey when the mere allegation of sexual misconduct has cost him movie roles and a Emmy award-winning TV show.

 

[TexRex]

That I will agree with, but even if I took the tweet out of context, the ultimate point remains that mere allegations are costing more people their jobs and careers than ever before. We no longer have Due Process when we can assassinate their character through the media. Just take a look at what happened to Kevin Spacey when the mere allegation of sexual misconduct has cost him movie roles and a Emmy award-winning TV show.

I'm not rejecting the implications of the tweet...

Anyway...

Am I the only one who feels the #metoo movement is leading to the right destination but isn't going about it the right way?

I have a daughter who will soon, if all goes as planned (fingers crossed), will be heading into the corporate world, to whatever degree, and I don't want her to end up in a situation that a staggering number of women find themselves in. Ideally she will figure prominently enough wherever she ends up, but that's not reality, and still doesn't remove the possibility situations will be encounteted.

That said, the current climate is far too susceptible to abuse (just look at the number of claims that reference lost job opportunities, a scenario that lends itself to bitterness and a desire to get revenge--not to say that all such scenarios result in action to this end), and harsh sentences (expulsion and ostracism) are being brought down on alleged perpetrators with seemingly minimal investigation. I believe that individuals are capable of changing, particularly when actions are revealed and penalized.

Now I don't claim to know what the right way is, but surely something can be agreed upon if all involved parties (which is basically everyone) hash things out.

 

[Rallywagon]

Due process is only applicable within the legal system. Verdicts and sentences cannot be rendered without due process. However, that doesnt encompass public opinion, media lambasting or employment backlash. Personally, i for one am not so bothered by accusations leading to public repercussions. As an example of why, I live just a few minutes from Michigan State University. There was a sports dr that, as you may have heard, raped or molested over 100 teens and young women in his career both with the olympic committee and MSU. Many of these girls and their families logged complaints against him to both bodies, only to have them ignored. Decades of abuse where ignored. This is not uncommon from people in positions of power and standing. Until the tide turns, which is seems is happening, and it doesnt take dozens or more of accusations to being the process of investigation, then inhave a hard time not supporting any means that gets us there. It sucks that some may be falsely accused and careers destroyed, but i think that pales considerably in the face of those abused and dismissed.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Due process is only applicable within the legal system. Verdicts and sentences cannot be rendered without due process. However, that doesnt encompass public opinion, media lambasting or employment backlash. Personally, i for one am not so bothered by accusations leading to public repercussions. As an example of why, I live just a few minutes from Michigan State University. There was a sports dr that, as you may have heard, raped or molested over 100 teens and young women in his career both with the olympic committee and MSU. Many of these girls and their families logged complaints against him to both bodies, only to have them ignored. Decades of abuse where ignored. This is not uncommon from people in positions of power and standing. Until the tide turns, which is seems is happening, and it doesnt take dozens or more of accusations to being the process of investigation, then inhave a hard time not supporting any means that gets us there. It sucks that some may be falsely accused and careers destroyed, but i think that pales considerably in the face of those abused and dismissed.

Hang them all and sort out the details later. If we happen to be wrong on a few of them that's okay, because most of them were guilty. Would you hire Aziz Ansari to work on your comedy club now?

 

[Rallywagon]

Naah, It would be Joe Rogan or Joey Diaz. Or better yet, lets just ignore all of thisnand continue as usual and let the abused continue to be ignored.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Naah, It would be Joe Rogan or Joey Diaz. Or better yet, lets just ignore all of thisnand continue as usual and let the abused continue to be ignored.

No one here was suggesting that. All I am suggesting is let the accused be able to defend himself without the need for the accuser to go to the court of public opinion.

EDIT to add: You have to remember that these are allegations, and to try them before the court of public opinion BEFORE all of the facts come out is very dangerous to a free society. Right now we have what took place after the French Revolution or more appropriately, the Spanish Inquisition, only without the torture or the swift execution of the accused.

 

[Rallywagon]

Thats likely the nature of social media, but that doesnt mean due process isnt being followed. As far as i have heard, no one is being convicted without due process.

 

[TexRex]

All I am suggesting is let the accused be able to defend himself without the need for the accuser to go to the court of public opinion.

It seems to me a number of the accused did defend themselves. They defended themselves by retaining a support network to quell would-be accusers who then saw no other option than to present their case to the court of public opinion.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Naah, It would be Joe Rogan or Joey Diaz. Or better yet, lets just ignore all of thisnand continue as usual and let the abused continue to be ignored.

I guess it's can only be one or the other and there is no middle ground.

 

[Rallywagon]

What middle ground is there for serial raping and molestation? We are just seeing the tip of the ice berg with the likes of Weinstein and Nassar. Both of whom had countless enablers and despite many previous accusers were able to continue raping and molesting for a very long time. When the accusers are not so readily dismissed, then i think we can worry about middle ground.

 

[Johnnypenso]

What middle ground is there for serial raping and molestation? We are just seeing the tip of the ice berg with the likes of Weinstein and Nassar. Both of whom had countless enablers and despite many previous accusers were able to continue raping and molesting for a very long time. When the accusers are not so readily dismissed, then i think we can worry about middle ground.

I was referring to the middle ground between not being concerned about lives and careers being destroyed by unsubstantiated allegations on social media and completely ignoring the accusers and their concerns. So would you or would you not hire Aziz Ansari to work in your comedy club?

 

[Rallywagon]

No need for middle ground there. If you falsely accuse someone you should be held accountable for your actions and the damages caused. But i personally dont care if there are some false accusations if thats the trade off for more abused feeling empowered to come forward.

 

[TexRex]

But i personally dont care if there are some false accusations if thats the trade off for more abused feeling empowered to come forward.

Which shouldn't be misconstrued as not caring if some are falsely accused so long as the rightfully accused's transgressions come to light.

(Because I can see some doing exactly that.)