- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,035 comments
- 1,699,995 views
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
- 24,612
- Anoka, MN
No, becoming a person who can't even look past who is making the post long enough to actually read and understand the post before responding.
Anyways, you've made this section unpleasant for long enough, so don't bother responding as you are on my ignore list now. Have a nice weekend and peace out!
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
I agree. @TexRex ramshot all over my post because of WHO I was making a comment about, and not looking and critically thinking about what I was actually talking about.
I let the first one slide about Warren, but this I can not ignore. However, unlike @Northstar, I will allow you an opportunity to respond to me before I slap you back on the ignore list.
- 40,750
That's one way of reading it, I suppose."He did it first"?
Another way is that Scaff liked to treat people in this subforum like he was still dealing with the mouth breathers who crawled up Kazunori Yamauchi's ass and died that he dealt with when he was a moderator, and Johnnypenso called him on it apparently within a day of Scaff trying to pull a gotcha post. Whether or not the sniping spilling out into public in either case was justified then is open to interpretation I suppose, but I certainly don't see what it has to do with this discussion here when that was clearly a personal matter between two specific people from 5 months ago.
Last edited:
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
He was trying to tell me that I shouldn't defend @Johnnypenso because of that very subject. I shouldn't have to put up with that.
However, I do feel that this has gone far enough off topic.
- 6,056
- Simcoeace
I'm not sure why you referenced me in this post ... and I'm not sure what point you are making here? Although it is theoretically possibly that lower taxes can mean lower deficits, that's not what has "just happened" as I understand it. The deficit has grown & stands at about 830 billion dollars for 2018 & is projected to be 980 billion dollars for 2019. The only time there has been a surplus in recent decades is during the Clinton presidency, which could be attributed to a rapidly growing economy & decreased military spending following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The deficit ballooned in the first four years of the Obama presidency due to measures taken to combat the severe 2008 recession. It then decreased significantly in the last four years of Obama's administration as the economy strengthened . The increase of the deficit under Trump is a direct result of the tax cuts & increased military spending.
Keynes advocated deficit spending in times of economic downturn in order to stimulate the economy - he did not advocate continual deficit spending. Running big deficits during periods of strong economic growth is not a good idea as it increases the national debt at a time it should be being reduced. The Republicans who made a lot of noise about Obama's deficits seem to be pretty mute on the current deficit. As usual short-term political considerations trump conservative fiscal policy.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
I wouldn't trust the CBO as far as projections are concerned. They are required by LAW to only process the information that is fed to them.
However, there is one thing to speak of concerning the CBO. Obama DID spend more in two years than Trump is projected to spend in his entire Presidency. That fact you can't dispute, it is right there on the chart.
However, there is one thing to speak of concerning the CBO. Obama DID spend more in two years than Trump is projected to spend in his entire Presidency. That fact you can't dispute, it is right there on the chart.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Got me?
Read the thread sir. I already pointed out there is a large difference between voterfraud and election meddling. Do you understand the difference?
Your reading the chart wrong. Obama inherited that debt from the previous administration. Without that spending the economy would not have recovered as it did, like @Biggles pointed out A simple google search would have informed you about that:
- Fiscal 2007: $161 billion (next to last year of Bush’s second term)
- Fiscal 2008: $459 billion (beginning impact from the Great Recession)
- Fiscal 2009: $1.4 trillion (Obama’s first year and in the teeth of the Recession)
- Fiscal 2010: $1.3 trillion
- Fiscal 2011: $1.3 trillion
- Fiscal 2012: $1.1 trillion
- Fiscal 2013: $680 billion
- Fiscal 2014: $485 billion
- Fiscal 2015: $438 billion
- Fiscal 2016: $587 billion
- Fiscal 2017: $666 billion (Trump’s first year of his Presidency)
Trumps tax cuts are increasing the deficit again, but planned cuts in education, health, environmental, social healthcare, food stamps (cuts that will only benefit the rich again) are the plan to reduce it and at the same time to fund increasing spending military and border security, wall etc. That is a recipe for disaster.
Last edited:
- 6,056
- Simcoeace
Why would I dispute it? Obama inherited a catastrophic financial crisis - the worst any US president has faced since the Great Depression. The US economy gradually recovered from that low point. Trump inherited a growing economy & has ratcheted up the deficit by granting huge tax cuts mostly to the wealthiest 1% of the US population. As a result, the deficit, & therefore the national debt, is growing even during a period of economic growth - why do you think that's a good thing?
Last edited:
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Trump somehow has this magical aura that blinds his followers from reality. I am still waiting for the announcement that the Mexicans are going to pay for the border wall. A wall that every research already pointed out is a waste of money.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45930206
Wouldn’t it be much better to find proof first? If the USA pulls out. It will give Russia free reign to actually do manufacture these weapons! Or is that exactly what Trump and Putin planned in their closed room discussions?
Last edited:
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
There is not really that much of a difference here. Voter fraud is just one person acting in his own interests, while Election meddling is just widespread voter fraud that just so happens to benefit one nation, in Muller's case Russia. Don't be applying a different coat of paint on the same problem by hiding it under a different term.
Okay, I really didn't want to play this card, but you left me no choice...
What about the FOUR Quantitative Easing (QE) packages that Obama's treasury put out? Or better still, the half a billion dollars that was cut from Medicare (and the subsequent debt that would apply to Medicaid) to make Obamacare deficit neutral ten years down the road? Because the way that I see it, 2014 was when the Individual Mandate was to take effect, right? Of course it is. The additional revenue from the penalties that would hit people like a tax (Justice Roberts own words) brought in millions in additional revenue to the Government. That revenue is now gone.
Not relevant to the issue at hand.
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
No he doesn't. I knew Mexico would never would pay for the wall. Also let's forget he's doing more on less than Obama. The debt hasn't stopped growing but it is slowing down. I bet y'all are in some form of debt yourselves.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Mueller is investigating election meddling and not voterfraud. That is a pretty significant difference.
I don’t know the details to comment on your claims about Medicare. Please provide some sources so I can do research. Where do these penalties go? If the penalties go back into Obamacare/Medicare it really isn’t a tax.
Not relevant? This is the America thread and at least man up, when your accusations turn out to be false.
But the majority who voted him believed him on his word. And I think his hardcore following still somehow believe Mexico will pay for it. His two biggest campaign promises were to repeal Obamacare for something that will benefit everyone and the wall. How can somebody support him after he failed to do any of them?
It was already slowing down significantly under Obama. It is actually growing because of the trump tax cuts.
Edit: added response to @ryzno
Last edited:
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Disinformation is an element in election fraud according to Wikipedia so technically they are in the same overall basket. Direct voter fraud, meddling with disinformation or even the much talked about but yet to be proven Russian collusion all have the same desired result.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
Then please explain it to the rest of the class then. Because the only difference that I see between the two is that one benefits a nation while the other directly benefits an individual, so moving the goalposts is not drawing a lot of favors.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...ays-obamacare-cuts-money-medicare-and-senior/
That is the best that I can come up with.
I will gladly admit that I would be wrong, if you can provide sources that prove me wrong. As far as I can tell, Warren DID list herself as a minority professor at both Penn State AND Harvard, that fact you are not disputing in great detail. Plus there is a reverse racism lawsuit going on at Harvard, so I wouldn't trust anything that they are selling right now.
The only reason why it wasn't relevant to the topic of discussion in the last page or two is because we were talking about the flack that I got when defending Johnnypenso in one post.
- 6,056
- Simcoeace
The rate of increase varies from year to year, but the debt continues to grow, the only exception being during 4 years of the Clinton presidency. If you look at the CBO graph I posted you can see big jumps in the deficit at three points in the last 40 years. They correspond to the three major recessions. The current & projected increased deficits of the Trump administration are occurring during an economic upswing. The GOP, while spouting off about the debt when not in power, as usual, make no serious effort to reduce the debt, or even the deficit, when they are actually in power.
Voter fraud & election meddling by a foreign entity are quite clearly two completely different things. I think the rest of the class has no problem understanding that.
- 29,705
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I'd appreciate it if you'd specify the post to which you're referring. In the meantime:
Seeing as the last post from you that I addressed was regarding supposed outrage over Warren's actions, I can only assume you're referring to the one where I touched on the convention of speaking on behalf of another, but I didn't disregard any part of the post...I actually addressed it in its entirety.
Armed with a little more level-headedness, I'll try a slightly different approach:
Disagree. I don't believe @Johnnypenso was making a point at all; it was merely a post linking to an article and a subsequent presentation of the contents of said article. I don't think doing so was an effort to dispell myths either...no, it was more a case of "Hey look at these people cheating for the Dims."
I'll repeat my earlier assertion to the post cited above: Voter fraud is an actual thing. There exist laws and actions to enforce those laws as well as penalties for those found to have engaged in it. In my not-so-humble opinion, as a legally registered voter, those penalties aren't enough as engaging in this activity marginalizes my efforts to participate in deciding how this country is run.
To add: It comes in many forms and is perpetrated by many "types", favoring both sides of the aisle. Point fingers all you like, you're not going to change that unless you participate in the manner stated above and draft individuals interested in making those who may otherwise engage in it think twice as well as individuals interested in ensuring everyone who ought to have that right actually has that right.
You let the Warren thing slide? Yeah, you let it slide right by as you dodged it. I repeatedly requested a source that supported the notion of there being outrage on the part of Native American groups over Warren's actions after you cited a talk radio host's interpretation of the matter...("I had Pat Gray explain the outrage. The reason why they are so outraged is because each tribe has their own way of legitimizing blood results on an individual person.")...in an effort to support another's assertion of that notion and then repeatedly referred to it as "the outrage". Then, finally, you seemingly acknowledged that you don't actually know it to exist. You hadn't yet bowed out of the conversation, though...you didn't do that until I provided a rather civil response [well, not civil toward the Twidiot, to be sure] to your final post:
Please advise if the responses weren't properly aimed as indicated at the start.
I suppose that particular instance doesn't, however the post I cited is rather tidy in providing the term and an explanation for it in case others aren't aware. This is where its use really drew my ire, and while the use of it wasn't directed at me, I was involved in the implied case of "whiteknighting". I implore you to follow the trail of posts in both directions, though, as in the preceding I provide a clear indication that I am (and have been for a while) aware of that particular individual's tactics employed in an effort to ridicule what others say and their reasons for saying it. In the subsequent posts, you might get a chuckle (I know I did; that picture and its effective use were priceless) but you're likely to find a much more reasonable explanation for the response that apparently warranted being labeled as "whiteknighting".
That said, your remarks [prior to what I quoted, but that which I observed fully and critically] combined with the contents of and date on the screenshot (the latter of which corresponds to the passage of time indicated in the post linked to above) demonstrate a side of someone I was otherwise unaware. I'll consider that should they return or should I be tempted to repeat anything they've said.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
The problem with Keynes philosophy is that the stimulus required to get the economy up and running can't be suddenly taken away or the whole foundation of what is growing the economy will collapse, think the butterfly effect.
The whole model is short term thinking to avoid busts, that are inevitable in a free market. All we know now is the big one is coming and the more they delay it, the worse it gets.
The Interest on US Debt is projected to overtake military spending soon, and that is scary, the only way to slow it, is to slow the economy right down or risk a massive crash later.
This Model has done some serious damage to the Australian Economy, purposely lowing interest rates to un-natural levels to get the economy firing has just enabled super cheap credit to fuel our extremely over-inflated housing bubble, our household debt is now at un-seen levels and now they haven't got long before they have to increase the interest rates as our reserve bank has been the only one buying Government bonds for years now and they need to recoup the losses.
Once those rates go up, things are going to get real bad for homeowners who over-leveraged on cheap credit.
The whole model is short term thinking to avoid busts, that are inevitable in a free market. All we know now is the big one is coming and the more they delay it, the worse it gets.
The Interest on US Debt is projected to overtake military spending soon, and that is scary, the only way to slow it, is to slow the economy right down or risk a massive crash later.
This Model has done some serious damage to the Australian Economy, purposely lowing interest rates to un-natural levels to get the economy firing has just enabled super cheap credit to fuel our extremely over-inflated housing bubble, our household debt is now at un-seen levels and now they haven't got long before they have to increase the interest rates as our reserve bank has been the only one buying Government bonds for years now and they need to recoup the losses.
Once those rates go up, things are going to get real bad for homeowners who over-leveraged on cheap credit.
Last edited:
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Mueller isn’t investigating voter fraud, but election interference. You are free to think the accusation of wide scale voter fraud and election interference by a foreign country are “technically” in the same basket. However I clearly stated that wide scale voterfraud has been debunked by both parties and it has been proven that Russia interferes with the 2016 election. The user suggested Because of my claim that wide scale voterfraud had been debunked, mueller’s investigation has no legitimacy.
If you agree with his view, then I really cant refute ignorance.
The mueller investigation already has been a success in that Russia election interference has been proven. Collusion is something I was not referring at all. Although it is also under investigation, because it has correlation with the Russian interference.
Of course I didn’t dispute it, because she did. I detailed myself how it came to be. She checked a box on an application form. You are the one claiming she used it solely to advance her career and to enter politics. The source you posted is proof that she didn’t. All the people in that article from 2012 (the lawsuit is you are referring to is 2014?) already stated her heritage had no influence on her professional career. She never mentioned it during her election for senator. It was her opponent that used it to try and discredit her.
Edit: added response @Sanji Himura
Last edited:
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
As I said, it's not me that thinks they belong in the same basket but Wikipedia. Electoral fraud encompasses everything from the single phony vote up to foreign powers creating disinformation to affect the outcome. Just like cheating in sports could be moving your golf ball 1 inch or a widespread program by an Eastern Bloc nation to fuel their athletes with steroids. That doesn't mean they are identical in scope or scale, but they all fall under the same umbrella. Ignorance erased. Hope that helps.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
You are not reading my post sir. I am not disputing if they have similarities. You and the other user were speaking of voter fraud and not electoral fraud (which is much broader in scope). The definition as posted was in reference to an article as people trying to impersonate someone to cast a vote. That also makes a difference.
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_fraud
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_impersonation_(United_States)
I am disputing the claim of the user, that because widescale votingfraud is debunked by both parties, that somehow muellers investigation should be illegitimate. I am pointing out that voterfraud is not what Mueller is investigating and he already proved that the Russian interfered with the election.
I was saying that user is ignorant to suggest that Muellers investigation is illegitimate, I cant refute that if he doesnt acknowledge that fact.
- 6,056
- Simcoeace
It's not a problem with Keynesian philosophy - it may be a problem with how politicians USE Keynesian ideas. Throughout the 19th century there were severe & prolonged busts, which are easy to ignore now, but caused great economic hardship & political & social unrest at the time. These culminated in the mother-of-all busts of the Great Depression. Apart from the economic suffering caused by the bust of the Great Depression, it also contributed to the circumstances that led to rise of fascism & the destruction of the Second World War.
There's no way of knowing for sure what would have happened in the US (& other countries) over time if different policies had been pursued. Free-market advocates like to believe that left to its own devices "everything would just work out". In practice, the market is never "left to it's own devices", there's always political manipulation of some sort, so it's hard to know, however, the boom & bust cycles since the Great Depression have been very much more restrained than previous boom & bust cycles. Tax cuts always stimulate the economy, but not enough to counteract the deficit & growth of the national debt.
There may be a "big one" coming ... who knows? Trump's policy - providing a huge tax cut stimulus during an upswing in economic activity could help precipitate it by increasing the deficit & triggering inflation. Trump isn't a deep-thinker on these issues - or on anything else. Short-term thinking, mostly revolving around himself, is his modus operandi.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
It is incredible that people actually believe a in a totally free market, without regulation or oversight. That is a recipe for disaster and exactly what led up to the crisis in 2008. People just dont seem to learn from their own mistakes.
Everyone knows people love tax-cuts. Especially the republicans. Trump just used it as a way to boost his popularity.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Who are these people that believe in a totally free market without oversight or regulation? It's also untrue that a market without regulation or oversight led to the crisis of 2008. It had long and deep roots tracing back decades to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's influence on the mortgage market, the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, the 1994 National Partners in Homeownership, George Bush's increasing of the money supply in the 90's and the Fed agressively reducing the federal funds rate from 6.25% in 2001 to 1 % less than 2 years later. and ended the year at 1.75 percent. It can easily be argued that government action and inaction in the face of mounting evidence, directly led to the financial crisis of 2008. The safeguards that kept financial markets, banks, mortgage lending etc. were in place for decades and had worked to provide stability and trust in financial markets. It was the government that came along and got more involved in the mortgage and housing markets, provided risky and unnecessary deregulation and then failed to heed all the signs of an impending crisis.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
The primary cause was deregulation for the 2008 crisis. You are correct it wasnt without regulation or no oversight. But less regulation and less oversight did caus it.
Didnt you believe in a totally free market? Perhaps I mixed you up with another member.
I did not know that the government provided directly for risky subprime mortgages. Could you provide more reading material? If you are suggesting that the government is at fault because they provided the freedom to let the banks take unnessary risks, what do you think of the trump administration poshing for a free healthcare market and deregulation in the financial sector again? Making the same mistakes you are referencing to.
