Clinton vs Trump? 2016 POTUS (Page 12)

Ele

Sep 1, 2016

Ele

Join Date: Sep 2009

Sep 1, 2016

This makes me want to kill myself. If I see another bullshit page long semantics argument, someone's getting infracted. It is neither useful nor helpful.

Pig, rather than fuck around for 5 posts, not explain yourself and be deliberately antagonistic (as I've warned you about being before), just be straight.

"I was asking if it was certain not to happen, not if it was likely to happen". That's all you needed to say. Pretty bloody simple, innit?

SmallBowl responded to your initial question based on the implication behind your question - i.e. what happened in Turkey could happen here. Smallbowl just did what you do all the time to everyone, he responded to the implication behind your post rather than what the post textually says. Now you're whinging 'that's not what I said, respond to what I said' - A line I'm sure you heard from dozens of people you've argued with here.

Going forward in this thread, as I've said, I don't want to see any more semantic bullshit. If there is another disagreement with what someone is/isn't saying, I expect that when a person is asked for clarification they explain themselves (they don't fuck around for half a page, talking shit).

Last edited by Ele; Sep 1, 2016 at 03:21 AM.

deprav

Sep 1, 2016

deprav

Join Date: Dec 2010

Sep 1, 2016

Yeah, the US of A are slowly turning into that movie Idiocracy.

They should fucking riot because those two opportunistic incompetent dipshits bring no good, and the citizens should use that situation to change their shitty election system and reboot their politic scene.

STRIKING Reborn

deprav

Sep 1, 2016

deprav

Join Date: Dec 2010

Sep 1, 2016

yeah an independant succesful and opportunistic guy who has over 1 billion $$ debts. He's the worst kind of dipshit with a cult of personnality, who think they're an exemple of success because they have no second thoughts taking advantage of the broken economic model that's precisely been destroying people's lives.

He's an incompetent fuck whose daddy gave 1.000.000$ to play with, now he owns loads of shits and he owes just as much. Fuck him. And Fuck Hilarious Clinton as well.

STRIKING Reborn

SmallBowl

Sep 1, 2016

SmallBowl

Join Date: May 2014

Sep 1, 2016

Originally Posted by Gambi321

Not like Trump had to pay it back. Fuck him.
You do know what a loan is, right?

I think the point was that he doesnt see a million $ as a lot of money and is completely out of touch with the vast majority of american citizens

Also organising an economy is very very different to a business so I dont think him having made a lot of money through business justifies him as qualified to handle the worlds biggest economy

Don't dm me pictures of bowls that you find attractive.

pouffy

Sep 2, 2016

pouffy

Forumite

Join Date: Sep 2014

Sep 2, 2016

^ and it shows

Clicky clicky

There's quite a difference in being a player of the game who pushes the boundaries of the rules and the referee who makes them.

[sigpic][/sigpic]

pouffy

Sep 2, 2016

pouffy

Forumite

Join Date: Sep 2014

Sep 2, 2016

Originally Posted by wibblefox

I think it's really short sighted to interpret the tax cuts as money disappearing, this is money that Americans will hold on to themselves. These are policies that a lot of people believe in, so it's kind of dishonest to just look at the final figure and say "omg Hillary is lower!!1" when that money is still in the economy at all percentiles.

This is a weird, but creative strawman. I'm impressed you could make it sound like I'm talking about something so so much different than I actually am.

First, my point was that his skills as an economist aren't quite up to par compared to his er... skills as a businessman. I think soaring government debt proves that, except in exemplary situations (where the country has bigger problems - i.e. huge recessions). Nowhere did I even imply that the money was disappearing...?

Second, I actually agree with what you said, mostly. Deficits can be useful and helpful when used in particular ways during the right time in the business cycle. However, accumulated debt is a different story. There's no good reason to believe that getting to a point where the debt to gdp ratio is 143% is a good trade-off for unnecessary economic stimulus.

[sigpic][/sigpic]

pouffy

Sep 2, 2016

pouffy

Forumite

Join Date: Sep 2014

Sep 2, 2016

Let's clear something up...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-robert-costa/

He says we're sitting on a bubble and that we need to reduce the debt. His words, not mine. Yet, despite his promise to reduce the debt in 8 years (which he has since rescinded), we're now looking at policies that would drastically add to the debt. Anti-debt language was in his economic policy speech he gave, and anti-debt language remains on his website. I'm saying this show's he's a bad economist because hes literally doing the opposite of one of his biggest concerns.

Originally Posted by wibblefox

143% in the next what, 16+ years? How exactly do you justify the assertion that ALL of Trump's policies will remain in effect for that long?

How exactly is economic stimulus unnecessary? You and TPC's paper both neglect to realise that having money in circulation in your economy is a good thing, the government is not the arbiter of the economy. Growth, increase in standards of living, and economic stimulus are all benefits that will come from reduced taxes.

You take the 2... subtract the 1....

Okay right, this is speculative of the debt levels in 2026, ten years from now, under Trump's current proposed policies. Not some numberpulledouttamyass 16+ years.

To be honest, I don't believe he'd make it past 2020 before he'd be replaced, but these policies are 1.) the exact opposite of what apparently aligns with his values 2.) irresponsible without any need to provide economic stimulus.

The economy is finally getting back on its feet. Unless you mean to say the business cycle shouldn't be accounted for and we should run monster deficits all the time (if that's the case, then I think you should talk to the 70s), then we should start looking at more of the same or a more balanced budget, not a further skewed one. The government is absolutely the arbiter of the economy, that's the responsibility of monetarily sovereign entities. That's why the fed was created, and whether you like it or not fiscal policy can have huge effects on the economy. Absolving the government of responsibility for the economy in order to justify irresponsible deficits is just silly. Current level deficits are just fine.

[sigpic][/sigpic]

deprav

Sep 2, 2016

deprav

Join Date: Dec 2010

Sep 2, 2016

"...the government is not the arbiter of the economy..."

"...The government is absolutely the arbiter of the economy..."

We're touching the (ideological) heart of the problem, the government SHOULD BE the arbiter of the economy, but it's not. There's no democratic control over the actual economic model ; it's actually the other way around now : the economic model is the arbiter of the government(s), and it precisely advocates deregulation and opacity.

Hilarious and Doneld have nothing to gain from reducing the national debt because the very foundation of the economic model they're defending IS the debt. Them claiming the opposite is just plain & simple electoral demagoguery, just like any emotion inducing subject that will conquer more voters.

This is getting sad and old, yet people are still taking it up the ass like it's a suppository -and a big one- for their own good.

Edit :

Also, while we're talking economics, let us remind that is a science which predictions only work on a closed model ; model that is reaching the end of its course.

Last edited by deprav; Sep 2, 2016 at 06:30 PM.

STRIKING Reborn

SmallBowl

Sep 2, 2016

SmallBowl

Join Date: May 2014

Sep 2, 2016

Originally Posted by wibblefox

Well not his words because I can't even find the word "reduce" in the entire interview.

You want me to read a 20,000 word interview? Sorry, not going to happen.

How about you give me a direct quote.

"Yeah, but see, thats not the getting. The getting, for me, is to make our country great again. The getting thats just a part of it. The getting the position is not the real getting. For me, the getting is and thats when Ill say, congratulations everyone, my job is finished. We will make our country financially strong again. When you have 19 . . . I had a woman come up to me. A wonderful woman. I said this one or two times in the speech. She said, "Mr. Trump, I love you. Youre so incredible. Im voting for you 100 percent, but could you stop saying youre going to make our country rich again?" I said, "I understand what youre saying it doesnt sound nice. But without being rich again, we cant be great again." I am going to make our country rich again. We are, the thing I didnt like about The Washington Post, they didnt put down my real statements as to Japan and everything else. They make it sound like I want Japan to have nuclear weapons. I dont. And by the way, other people have said this too. I dont mind taking care of Japan. But they have to help us out more, monetarily. We cant protect the entire world. You look at our military budget, its massive compared to any other country. But what are we doing? Were taking care of the military needs of all these countries. And these countries are much richer than us. Were not a rich country. Were a debtor nation. Weve got to get rid of I talked about bubble. Weve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt."

I used the word debt

Don't dm me pictures of bowls that you find attractive.

SmallBowl

Sep 3, 2016

SmallBowl

Join Date: May 2014

Sep 3, 2016

Originally Posted by wibblefox

And you think that putting money in to the pockets of citizens is:

A. Contrary to making USA rich?
B. Contrary to getting rid of the bubble?
C. Contrary to reducing debt?

I don't think there is a fast way to get rid of debt, by necessity you have to play the long game. It's not really realistic to not have any government spending for 5 years just to wipe out debt is it? Again, you have to look a little further in to the future.

Obviously he and his economists have decided that putting money back in the hands of Americans will help make America richer (I think it's unarguable that citizens having more money will do that), will reduce the bubble (we know that stimulating economic spending will do this, so again I think that's unarguable), and will reduce debt in the long run (which certain will happen if the country is richer and stabler, don't you think?).

Please clearly say what you disagree with, I think everything I said above is pretty solid.

I think this was aimed at me, I dont really disagree with anything youve said but you saked for a direct quote so I gave one to help your discussion with Pouffy

Trump says in that quote that he will get rid of the US debt, do you agree that this is both a lie and bad for the US economy was he to carry it out? Or alternatively do you think he is being deliberately misleading by meaning he will try and decrease the debt in the far future when thats not what the wording is designed to sound like?

Last edited by SmallBowl; Sep 3, 2016 at 12:51 PM.

Don't dm me pictures of bowls that you find attractive.

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Log in / Register

Inventory

Market

Clans

Ranking

Inventory

Store

Market

Clans

Community

Ranking