Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate for 2016

For domestic American politics only. For political issues with direct international implications, please post in the International Politics forum.

Re: Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate for 2016

Postby HeadhonchoII » Sun Nov 20, 2016 17:26

I agree, I was puzzled to see that because Krugman was well known for promoting Keynesian policies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But you got to ask yourself the question....what would astronaut Chris Hatfield do?
HeadhonchoII
Taiwanease Gentry
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 16:45
Has given kudos: 128 times
Has gotten kudos: 256 times

Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate for 2016

Postby HeadhonchoII » Sun Nov 20, 2016 17:39

I'm amazed a president can be elected and nobody knows what he's actually going to do..even though he has the congress behind him as well.

A premium bullshit artist , he sets a bad example to the young folk, lie and promise anything..get elected..that's all that counts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But you got to ask yourself the question....what would astronaut Chris Hatfield do?
HeadhonchoII
Taiwanease Gentry
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 16:45
Has given kudos: 128 times
Has gotten kudos: 256 times

Re: Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate for 2016

Postby Big Vern » Sun Nov 20, 2016 17:44

HeadhonchoII wrote:I agree, I was puzzled to see that because Krugman was well known for promoting Keynesian policies.



A Keynesian is how he self-identifies, which seems to count for everything these days. :smile:

In his defense he is a bit of a contrarian. Perhaps it's the anti-free trade aspect of Trumponomics (has that term been adopted by journalists yet?) that he has a problem with? As you say, it's puzzling to say the least.

Maybe he likes aspects of Trump's economic plans but hates most of Trump's social policies, so he's using economics as an excuse to bash Trump?
Big Vern
Taiwanease Deity
 
Posts: 5305
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:37
Has given kudos: 564 times
Has gotten kudos: 916 times

Re: Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate for 2016

Postby flike » Sun Nov 20, 2016 22:48

Keynes believed the the government should spend more than it takes in (deficit spending) as a kind of fiscal jumpstart to an economy in depression. Investing in infrastructure is something that should be focussed on when GDP begins falling. The US no signs of being anywhere close to a recession.

Krugman has also written lately about what it would take to reignite inflation. Although we can argue about exactly what level of deficit spending could lead to greater inflation, massive deficit spending on infrastructure while near the apex of the business cycle is not exactly anti-inflationary.

At one time Paul Krugman was a great economist. The NYT hired him to be polemical, to use his status as a great economist to argue for leftist policy. There's a reason he still has the job, and it ain't the NYT worrying about age discrimination.
flike
Taiwanease Gentry
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 20:33
Has given kudos: 104 times
Has gotten kudos: 57 times

Re: Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate for 2016

Postby Big Vern » Sun Nov 20, 2016 23:02

flike wrote:Keynes believed the the government should spend more than it takes in (deficit spending) as a kind of fiscal jumpstart to an economy in depression. Investing in infrastructure is something that should be focussed on when GDP begins falling. The US no signs of being anywhere close to a recession.

Krugman has also written lately about what it would take to reignite inflation. Although we can argue about exactly what level of deficit spending could lead to greater inflation, massive deficit spending on infrastructure while near the apex of the business cycle is not exactly anti-inflationary.

At one time Paul Krugman was a great economist. The NYT hired him to be polemical, to use his status as a great economist to argue for leftist policy. There's a reason he still has the job, and it ain't the NYT worrying about age discrimination.


The USA as a whole isn't in recession, but parts of it are. Municipalities under chapter 9 clearly aren't booming. After all the tortured analysis I think this will be the conclusion as to why Trump won.

Agree with you about Krugman. It's a shame when academics become politicians without the responsibility. Same happened to Chomsky.
Big Vern
Taiwanease Deity
 
Posts: 5305
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:37
Has given kudos: 564 times
Has gotten kudos: 916 times

Re: Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate for 2016

Postby Kal El » Sun Nov 20, 2016 23:26

Big Vern wrote:I find some of the opposition to Trump from economists very odd:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/opini ... ction&_r=0

Trump is going to pump money into infrastructure. Keynesian economics. So, why would someone like Paul Krugman be so opposed? He's basically opposed to Trump for social, environmental, and wealth redistribution reasons - in short, Krugman is admitting point blank that he places his liberal left views above his macroeconomic opinions. Essentially, he's arguing that he isn't an economist. He probably needs to move to the Sociology Department. :lol:

I think this is one reason why so many people mistrust the opinions of economists, possibly even more so than them getting it wrong so often in the past and then often having a tendency to rewrite economic history.

Social cohesion probably improves the economy over time, but it's surely a pretty minor factor in economic growth. Unless it's broken down to the level of anarchy.

Environmental destruction will damage an economy over a longer time period, although the Chinese economy still seems to be doing OK and will probably overtake the USA before long. However, how can Krugman support Keynesian economics, involving road building and stuff, and then point the finger at Trump?

I agree with the theory that fairer wealth distribution should increase consumer expenditure. However, for Krugman to criticize Trump's plans to reduce business tax makes no economic sense to me.

Basically, I don't think Krugman is an economist. What Trump will do for the economy (assuming he does what he says he will) will be far more Keynesian and 'left wing' than anything Clinton would have done with the exception of tax and military spending (which is actually Keynesian when you think about it).

That's a lot to read, man! Let's just grab America by the Pussy! :thumbsup:
Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash.
Sir Winston Churchill

Heathen filth, the lot of you.
Dr Kurt Langstrom

人不可貌相,海水不可斗量
User avatar
Kal El
Taiwanease Deity
 
Posts: 6931
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 23:17
Location: 台南, 台灣
Has given kudos: 1235 times
Has gotten kudos: 1164 times

Re: Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate for 2016

Postby Bubbha » Sun Nov 20, 2016 23:41

Trump not letting up on Hamilton. Still butthurt. You will never see an ounce of humility or contrition come out of this narcissistic egotistical bastard.

One defining feature of America is that we are allowed to criticize our leaders. American leaders cannot be thin-skinned. He is unfit for government leadership.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/201 ... ia=FB_Page

Behold the character of the man a minority of Americans voted into office.
Bubbha
Taiwanease Gentry
 
Posts: 1549
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 08:48
Has given kudos: 158 times
Has gotten kudos: 274 times

Re: Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate for 2016

Postby Big Vern » Sun Nov 20, 2016 23:42

Kal El wrote:
Big Vern wrote:I find some of the opposition to Trump from economists very odd:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/opini ... ction&_r=0

Trump is going to pump money into infrastructure. Keynesian economics. So, why would someone like Paul Krugman be so opposed? He's basically opposed to Trump for social, environmental, and wealth redistribution reasons - in short, Krugman is admitting point blank that he places his liberal left views above his macroeconomic opinions. Essentially, he's arguing that he isn't an economist. He probably needs to move to the Sociology Department. :lol:

I think this is one reason why so many people mistrust the opinions of economists, possibly even more so than them getting it wrong so often in the past and then often having a tendency to rewrite economic history.

Social cohesion probably improves the economy over time, but it's surely a pretty minor factor in economic growth. Unless it's broken down to the level of anarchy.

Environmental destruction will damage an economy over a longer time period, although the Chinese economy still seems to be doing OK and will probably overtake the USA before long. However, how can Krugman support Keynesian economics, involving road building and stuff, and then point the finger at Trump?

I agree with the theory that fairer wealth distribution should increase consumer expenditure. However, for Krugman to criticize Trump's plans to reduce business tax makes no economic sense to me.

Basically, I don't think Krugman is an economist. What Trump will do for the economy (assuming he does what he says he will) will be far more Keynesian and 'left wing' than anything Clinton would have done with the exception of tax and military spending (which is actually Keynesian when you think about it).

That's a lot to read, man! Let's just grab America by the Pussy! :thumbsup:


It's all about the money. Always has been, always will.
Big Vern
Taiwanease Deity
 
Posts: 5305
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:37
Has given kudos: 564 times
Has gotten kudos: 916 times

Re: Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate for 2016

Postby Kal El » Sun Nov 20, 2016 23:48

Big Vern wrote:It's all about the money. Always has been, always will.

No! Really!!?? Say it isn't so! :eek:
Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash.
Sir Winston Churchill

Heathen filth, the lot of you.
Dr Kurt Langstrom

人不可貌相,海水不可斗量
User avatar
Kal El
Taiwanease Deity
 
Posts: 6931
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 23:17
Location: 台南, 台灣
Has given kudos: 1235 times
Has gotten kudos: 1164 times

Re: Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate for 2016

Postby Hannibal » Mon Nov 21, 2016 00:22

Bubbha wrote:Trump not letting up on Hamilton. Still butthurt. You will never see an ounce of humility or contrition come out of this narcissistic egotistical bastard.

One defining feature of America is that we are allowed to criticize our leaders. American leaders cannot be thin-skinned. He is unfit for government leadership.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/201 ... ia=FB_Page

Behold the character of the man a minority of Americans voted into office.


Yawn. Leaders are allowed to criticize constituents too. I see to recall Obama calling cops dumb.

Oh, and doubleyawn:


Pence praised the musical and encouraged others to see it, telling host Chris Wallace that he enjoyed the show.


You do realize that THIS is what you should be worried about right? I mean all this piddly shit is a headfake, yeah?
A Pen and a Phone
79 immigration actions the next president can take

By CIS April 2016

http://cis.org/A-Pen-and-a-Phone-79-imm ... t-can-take

NOte the date.

"I've got a pen and I've got a phone," President Obama famously said two years ago, openly proclaiming his strategy of ignoring Congress and acting unilaterally — and often illegally — to advance his agenda. He has adopted this approach regarding immigration as well, most notably in a series of November 2014 memos further reducing enforcement of the law and granting work authorization and Social Security numbers to millions of illegal aliens (that amnesty is held up in court).

This Backgrounder lists steps the next president can take — legally — with his or her own pen and phone early in the next administration. Many of the steps we suggest consist of rolling back the ill-advised and constitutionally dubious "executive actions" undertaken by the Obama White House. Those roll-backs alone would go far toward restoring balance and credibility to the nation's immigration system, although we realize they are unlikely in the event a Democrat takes the White House, given the commitments the two Democratic candidates have staked out in their debates.

Note also that the suggestions primarily reflect those things that can be done by the executive branch (within the constraints imposed by the Constitution, unlike those taken by our current president) — not the policy matters that will require major legislative changes, which we also believe are in the interest of the country. Those would include lowering the level of legal immigration and de-emphasizing familial relationships in the visa quota system in favor of a more balanced approach to the national interest, one that does not engender chain migration. Right now, the United States accepts about one million new resident aliens each and every year, year in and year out. The result in the past few decades has been a historically high percentage of immigrants among our population, raising serious questions about assimilation and integration of migrant populations.


It's a long list. Check it out.

Conclusion

There is an inherent limitation to our suggestions that readers should bear in mind: There are few, if any, restraints on Barack Obama during the last year of his presidency, save possibly the fear of losing the White House to Republicans. Even that may not ultimately matter to him, depending on his vision for shaping the future, post-departure.

For this reason, we have no way to know what additional executive actions he may direct over the course of the coming months. Certainly the fear of future lawsuits, or even those pending such as the action before the Supreme Court, will not likely deter him since they become some other president's burden, no matter which party that president represents
.



So, it's not about Trump changing any law really. It's a matter of simply...very simply, applying the laws on the books. And each step of the way, Trump can ask the American people to consider why the laws weren't enforced in the first place. They were laws, most of them bi-partisan. Why did Obama choose not to enforce them. Remember sb 1070 in 2010? I do. I was driving through Arizona at the time. The people I met, bus drivers, casino workers, residents...all for it. Obama shut it down. Circle come round, yo.
Na na na na hey hey
Hannibal
Taiwanease Royalty
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:48
Has given kudos: 58 times
Has gotten kudos: 454 times

Re: Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate for 2016

Postby Hannibal » Mon Nov 21, 2016 00:34

.
Na na na na hey hey
Hannibal
Taiwanease Royalty
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:48
Has given kudos: 58 times
Has gotten kudos: 454 times

Re: Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate for 2016

Postby Big Vern » Mon Nov 21, 2016 07:56

Kal El wrote:
Big Vern wrote:It's all about the money. Always has been, always will.

No! Really!!?? Say it isn't so! :eek:

A lot of commentators are desperately trying to say it's about anything other than money.
Big Vern
Taiwanease Deity
 
Posts: 5305
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:37
Has given kudos: 564 times
Has gotten kudos: 916 times

Re: Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate for 2016

Postby Hannibal » Mon Nov 21, 2016 08:15

Big Vern wrote:
Kal El wrote:
Big Vern wrote:It's all about the money. Always has been, always will.

No! Really!!?? Say it isn't so! :eek:

A lot of commentators are desperately trying to say it's about anything other than money.

There's a lot of money moving around now. The NY Times has 41,000 new subscriptions since Trump won. The ACLU is going full frontal assault on IF TRUMP BREAKS THE LAW, WE'LL SUE...please donate...

Fear mongering isn't limited to the campaign it seems. The Left will ride this hoss until it drops right dead...and then they'll eat it.
Na na na na hey hey
Hannibal
Taiwanease Royalty
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:48
Has given kudos: 58 times
Has gotten kudos: 454 times

Re: Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate for 2016

Postby Bubbha » Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:47

The true racist nature of the GOP, long thinly veiled in a tattered cloak of plausible deniability and projection, is unmasked, thanks to Trump.

David Duke, former Klan leader, applauds Trump staff, Cabinet picks as "‘great first steps".

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/ ... umps-cabi/

'Hail Trump!': White Nationalists [Nazi-] Salute the President Elect

Excerpt:

"'Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!'

That’s how Richard B. Spencer saluted more than 200 attendees on Saturday, gathered at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C., for the annual conference of the National Policy Institute, which describes itself as 'an independent organization dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.'"

Spencer has popularized the term 'alt-right' to describe the movement he leads. Spencer has said his dream is 'a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans,' and has called for 'peaceful ethnic cleansing.'"

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... pi/508379/

Can't deny it anymore, folks.
Bubbha
Taiwanease Gentry
 
Posts: 1549
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 08:48
Has given kudos: 158 times
Has gotten kudos: 274 times

Re: Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate for 2016

Postby Winston Smith » Tue Nov 22, 2016 12:40

Bubbha wrote:The true racist nature of the GOP, long thinly veiled in a tattered cloak of plausible deniability and projection, is unmasked, thanks to Trump.

David Duke, former Klan leader, applauds Trump staff, Cabinet picks as "‘great first steps".

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/ ... umps-cabi/

'Hail Trump!': White Nationalists [Nazi-] Salute the President Elect

Excerpt:

"'Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!'

That’s how Richard B. Spencer saluted more than 200 attendees on Saturday, gathered at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C., for the annual conference of the National Policy Institute, which describes itself as 'an independent organization dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.'"

Spencer has popularized the term 'alt-right' to describe the movement he leads. Spencer has said his dream is 'a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans,' and has called for 'peaceful ethnic cleansing.'"

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... pi/508379/

Can't deny it anymore, folks.


Teump may be racist but the guilt by association logical fallacy isn't proof.

Fallacy: Guilt By Association

Also Known as: Bad Company Fallacy, Company that You Keep Fallacy

Description of Guilt By Association

Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
Therefore P is false
It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."

The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.

Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).

Examples of Guilt By Association

Will and Kiteena are arguing over socialism. Kiteena is a pacifist and hates violence and violent people.
Kiteena: "I think that the United States should continue to adopt socialist programs. For example, I think that the government should take control of vital industries."
Will: "So, you are for state ownership of industry."
Kiteena: "Certainly. It is a great idea and will help make the world a less violent place."
Will: "Well, you know Stalin also endorsed state ownership on industry. At last count he wiped out millions of his own people. Pol Pot of Cambodia was also for state ownership of industry. He also killed millions of his own people. The leadership of China is for state owned industry. They killed their own people in that square. So, are you still for state ownership of industry?"
Kiteena: "Oh, no! I don't want to be associated with those butchers!"

Jen and Sandy are discussing the topic of welfare. Jen is fairly conservative politically but she has been an active opponent of racism. Sandy is extremely liberal politically.
Jen: "I was reading over some private studies of welfare and I think it would be better to have people work for their welfare. For example, people could pick up trash, put up signs, and maybe even do skilled labor that they are qualified for. This would probably make people feel better about themselves and it would get more out of our tax money."
Sandy: "I see. So, you want to have the poor people out on the streets picking up trash for their checks? Well, you know that is exactly the position David Count endorses."
Jen: "Who is he?"
Sandy: "I'm surprised you don't know him, seeing how alike you two are. He was a Grand Mooky Wizard for the Aryan Pure White League and is well known for his hatred of blacks and other minorities. With your views, you'd fit right in to his little racist club."
Jen: "So, I should reject my view just because I share it with some racist?"
Sandy: "Of course."

Libard and Ferris are discussing who they are going to vote for as the next department chair in the philosophy department. Libard is a radical feminist and she despises Wayne and Bill, who are two sexist professors in the department.
Ferris: "So, who are you going to vote for?"
Libard: "Well, I was thinking about voting for Jane, since she is a woman and there has never been a woman chair here. But, I think that Steve will do an excellent job. He has a lot of clout in the university and he is a decent person."
Ferris: "You know, Wayne and Bill are supporting him. They really like the idea of having Steve as the new chair. I never thought I'd see you and those two pigs on the same side."
Libard: "Well, maybe it is time that we have a woman as chair."

These users gave kudos to the author Winston Smith for the post:
Mick (Tue Nov 22, 2016 13:41)
Winston Smith
Taiwanease Gentry
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 14:27
Has given kudos: 10 times
Has gotten kudos: 50 times

PreviousNext

Return to American (Domestic) Politics