Trump says he would like to 'hit' DNC speakers who disparaged him

[pucho812]

I think you need to read up more on Khizr Khan before you start to demonize trump for what he said to one person.

 

[living sounds]

Pucho, you need to stop reading right wing conspiracy websites and get actual news from credible outlets.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I think you need to read up more on Khizr Khan before you start to demonize trump for what he said to one person.

You're still missing the point.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Pucho, you need to stop reading right wing conspiracy websites and get actual news from credible outlets.

Well.... Obama's a Kenyan Muslim so.....

 

[Sammas]

The big lie is that POTUS can actually create real sustainable jobs, at best they can do no harm and allow the economy to prosper, something not happening now.

from http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-economy-grew-at-a-disappointing-1-2-in-2nd-quarter-1469795649

Unfortunately that argument falls apart when you consider the fact that parts of the western world like Australia, the UK and USA have the most deregulated economies in living memory. Australia and the UK also share similar declines in GDP. If free market prosperity were ever going to happen, it would be happening right now... and not 50 or 60 years ago when Keynesianism reigned king and Governments played a much more active role in utilising all aspects of society.

It is really no coincidence that the declines starts with Ronald Reagan's term... The UK's kicks off with Thatcher too.

 

[kambo]

Pucho, you need to stop reading right wing conspiracy websites and get actual news from credible outlets.

Well.... Obama's a Kenyan Muslim so.....

i once read the most funny one :

when Arnold Schwarzenegger got elected in CA, they were panicking that he was an alien, (i mean real alien with UFO and all that) and they were going to make some changes for him to get elected as President,
and takeover USA and the planet, but all under cover  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[JohnRoberts]

The big lie is that POTUS can actually create real sustainable jobs, at best they can do no harm and allow the economy to prosper, something not happening now.

Unfortunately that argument falls apart when you consider the fact that parts of the western world like Australia, the UK and USA have the most deregulated economies in living memory. Australia and the UK also share similar declines in GDP. If free market prosperity were ever going to happen, it would be happening right now... and not 50 or 60 years ago when Keynesianism reigned king and Governments played a much more active role in utilising all aspects of society.

It is really no coincidence that the declines starts with Ronald Reagan's term... The UK's kicks off with Thatcher too.

Politics is the practice of providing vague "easy" answers, that voters  "think" they understand, to solve complex difficult problems. Both candidates are guilty of this.

I have written about this a lot over the years, and slowing GDP growth (in the West) has numerous causes, ranging from globalization***, to slowing productivity growth, to aging demographics, falling business investment, to.... etc..

My point is that the Obama economic policy has not delivered the strong economy they claim in numerous political speeches. Hillary so far seems to be promising more of the same policy.

US tax policy used to be relatively good for business but over the decades the rest of the world has dropped their tax rates while we stayed the same or increased. Now the US is a relatively high tax region with companies maneuvering to escape by using smoke and mirrors tricks like buying a smaller foreign company and making that their new tax home (conversion).  The political reaction is to call these corporations unpatriotic, but businesses are responsible to their stockholders to survive international competition and remain profitable.

The best way to stop this exodus of big business from the US is to remove that tax rate differential that motivates them to relocate overseas. Another distortion that affects US GDP growth is retained earnings held overseas to avoid tax becoming due if repatriated and reinvested in the US.  I am not arguing that the US needs to be the lowest tax nation, we just need to restore a competitive tax rate with respect to other major nations.

The unnatural low interest rate environment, too low for too long,  is causing perverse economic distortions.  Bubbles are rarely recognized until after they burst. The stock market and several asset categories seem over-priced, but in the current environment alternatives are scarce.
------------
If I understand you are arguing for more government spending (and borrowing?).

You mentioned Pres Reagan, look at this graphic about government borrowing. Indeed the republicans are not innocent here,

but President Obama has increased our debt further from a significant fraction of GDP (note slowing  GDP growth under President Obama makes this metric even worse).

It is also worth noting that as our sovereign debt equals 100% of our GDP interest rates paid on this debt is at historical lows (low single digit). Even a few percent increase on the interest rate for this debt will double or triple our debt service cost. 

Another little discussed factoid is that over $5T of US sovereign debt is held by the US government : by Social Security, government trust funds, revolving accts, etc. The government buying their own debt can distort (suppress) the true market rate for that debt.
---------
I am not suggesting that there is one easy answer, but tax policy strikes me as a bleeding ulcer that causing US corporations to escape which reduces domestic business investment. Government borrowing and spending is a less than zero sum game. President Obama spent  $1T and I do not like the trend lines I see.

Of course maybe I'm wrong...  I have a much longer list of policy suggestions but in the spirit of political discussions I am trying to keep it simple.  8)

JR


*** Globalization looks more like a huge wealth transfer between unskilled workers in the West, to unskilled workers in developing nations, in the process raising millions out of poverty (a good thing IMO).

 

[JohnRoberts]

I think you need to read up more on Khizr Khan before you start to demonize trump for what he said to one person.

There is absolutely no rational justification for Trump's attack against the parents of the dead Iraqi war veteran. He is shooting himself in the foot, while that foot is in his mouth.

  Political discussion is a crude blunt instrument lacking any finesse or details and details matter in policy. But there is no way to win this exchange as ugly as it looks and is, so Trump needs to drop it. 

Hillary has offered her political defense of the claim she lied to the mothers of Benghazi dead military. She said the woman must have mis-remembered what she said... The only reason she is getting away with this she said vs she said is because  Trump created his own much larger sh__ storm.

This is the ugly part of politics trading on the grief of families for political benefit.  Both side did it but the democrats win this round because of more disciplined political speech. Trump can be his own worst enemy when shooting from the hip, before his brain is in gear.

JR

 

[pucho812]

Hey as long as we are talking the khan's remember when  smith another gold star family blamed hilary for the death of her son

Her response was to call her a liar....
I find it bizzar we hold trump to a different standard the clinton.  Why does she get a pass and he don't. Hell it should be sanders v trump but a rigged election....

What a great thing, really puts women's  rights ahead to have  her get it by fraud. She is not even the first but that's a whole other story.

 

[dmp]

Hell it should be sanders v trump but a rigged election....

It wasn't a rigged federal election - it was a party primary, which the parties can administer however they want. Heck, I could start a party and select candidates anyway I wanted. If people don't like how the two parties select there candidates, then leave the party. But don't confuse a federal election with the party primaries. The parties don't even have to have primaries if they don't want to.

 

[Andy Peters]

Hell it should be sanders v trump but a rigged election....

It wasn't a rigged federal election - it was a party primary, which the parties can administer however they want. Heck, I could start a party and select candidates anyway I wanted. If people don't like how the two parties select there candidates, then leave the party. But don't confuse a federal election with the party primaries. The parties don't even have to have primaries if they don't want to.

While it's true that the parties run their own business as they wish, the elections are actually run by the states in which they are held, and each county or other jurisdiction has control over polling locations and other implementation details.

Here in Arizona, there will be an initiative on the November ballot that, if passed, would require the parties who wish to hold primaries to pay for them. It's not clear whether this initiative would also require that the parties handle the details such as the vote counting or organizing polling-location volunteers and staff (now handled by county recorders).

-a

 

[Andy Peters]

I find it bizzar we hold trump to a different standard the clinton.  Why does she get a pass and he don't. Hell it should be sanders v trump but a rigged election..

Please, show all relevant data pointing to a rigged election in any of the primaries.

And before you say "Maricopa County, Arizona," I will remind you that that particular fuck-up was the result of a Republican county recorder deciding to reduce the number of polling places from 200 to 60. Some heavily-Latino areas and native areas didn't have ANY polling places -- and those disenfranchised voters were overwhelmingly for Clinton.

-a

 

[JohnRoberts]

Hey as long as we are talking the khan's remember when  smith another gold star family blamed hilary for the death of her son

Her response was to call her a liar....

When questioned recently Hillary said Smith must have misheard or remembered her wrong.

I find it bizzar we hold trump to a different standard the clinton. 

In this case blame Trump for making it so easy to ignore her as he goes hyper-offensive. 

Why does she get a pass and he don't.

This is not new... but for one thing Trump has actual press conferences where they ask him difficult questions/ Hillary hasn't held a press conference for over 200 days. She has given numerous friendly "interviews" where she gets mostly softball questions.

In one of those "friendly" interviews by 60 minutes they accidentally asked her a pertinent question about the leaked DNC emails, but friendly editors excised the question and answer from the highly watched 60 minutes broadcast, relegating it to bonus coverage on the CBS website.   

Hell it should be sanders v trump but a rigged election....

What a great thing, really puts women's  rights ahead to have  her get it by fraud. She is not even the first but that's a whole other story.

Relax that's pretty much politics as usual.

Keep your eyes open for the next Donald eruption... the dems are baiting him by getting wealthy successful business people to attack him. He really hates that. This thread is about his reactions to Bloomberg's criticism, so today they turned it up a notch with Warren Buffet to criticize him over his tax returns and  Mark Cuban with more ad hominum.  I even saw President Obama attacking Trump from a news conference with the Leader of Singapore.

I can imagine a cartoon image of Trump looking like a pressure cooker that is about to blow... I really hope he takes the high road and ignores getting baited into veering away from his actual campaign and into another social media fight.  He needs to settle down and focus on the game, not get played by the other team.

JR

 

[kambo]

if the glove doesn't fit,you must quit  ;D
even President Obama calling him "unfit"

edit for more rhyme :
people started to call him "thick"
i like this rhyme on latest "freak"

good times 

 

[pucho812]

yeah but there were plenty who called Obama unfit 8 years ago, including Clinton...  So yeah I'll chalk it up to politics as usual.

 

[Sammas]

The big lie is that POTUS can actually create real sustainable jobs, at best they can do no harm and allow the economy to prosper, something not happening now.

Unfortunately that argument falls apart when you consider the fact that parts of the western world like Australia, the UK and USA have the most deregulated economies in living memory. Australia and the UK also share similar declines in GDP. If free market prosperity were ever going to happen, it would be happening right now... and not 50 or 60 years ago when Keynesianism reigned king and Governments played a much more active role in utilising all aspects of society.

It is really no coincidence that the declines starts with Ronald Reagan's term... The UK's kicks off with Thatcher too.

Politics is the practice of providing vague "easy" answers, that voters  "think" they understand, to solve complex difficult problems. Both candidates are guilty of this.

I have written about this a lot over the years, and slowing GDP growth (in the West) has numerous causes, ranging from globalization***, to slowing productivity growth, to aging demographics, falling business investment, to.... etc..

My point is that the Obama economic policy has not delivered the strong economy they claim in numerous political speeches. Hillary so far seems to be promising more of the same policy.

US tax policy used to be relatively good for business but over the decades the rest of the world has dropped their tax rates while we stayed the same or increased. Now the US is a relatively high tax region with companies maneuvering to escape by using smoke and mirrors tricks like buying a smaller foreign company and making that their new tax home (conversion).  The political reaction is to call these corporations unpatriotic, but businesses are responsible to their stockholders to survive international competition and remain profitable.

The best way to stop this exodus of big business from the US is to remove that tax rate differential that motivates them to relocate overseas. Another distortion that affects US GDP growth is retained earnings held overseas to avoid tax becoming due if repatriated and reinvested in the US.  I am not arguing that the US needs to be the lowest tax nation, we just need to restore a competitive tax rate with respect to other major nations.

The unnatural low interest rate environment, too low for too long,  is causing perverse economic distortions.  Bubbles are rarely recognized until after they burst. The stock market and several asset categories seem over-priced, but in the current environment alternatives are scarce.
------------
If I understand you are arguing for more government spending (and borrowing?).

You mentioned Pres Reagan, look at this graphic about government borrowing. Indeed the republicans are not innocent here,

but President Obama has increased our debt further from a significant fraction of GDP (note slowing  GDP growth under President Obama makes this metric even worse).

It is also worth noting that as our sovereign debt equals 100% of our GDP interest rates paid on this debt is at historical lows (low single digit). Even a few percent increase on the interest rate for this debt will double or triple our debt service cost. 

Another little discussed factoid is that over $5T of US sovereign debt is held by the US government : by Social Security, government trust funds, revolving accts, etc. The government buying their own debt can distort (suppress) the true market rate for that debt.
---------
I am not suggesting that there is one easy answer, but tax policy strikes me as a bleeding ulcer that causing US corporations to escape which reduces domestic business investment. Government borrowing and spending is a less than zero sum game. President Obama spent  $1T and I do not like the trend lines I see.

Of course maybe I'm wrong...  I have a much longer list of policy suggestions but in the spirit of political discussions I am trying to keep it simple.  8)

JR


*** Globalization looks more like a huge wealth transfer between unskilled workers in the West, to unskilled workers in developing nations, in the process raising millions out of poverty (a good thing IMO).

I am arguing the vagueness of criticising government spending because the result isn't all peaches and cream. A very large portion of the western world is running government budget deficits as a result of the global financial crisis - a phenomonen hugely associated with free market economics in an ever globalising world. The only way it is associated with government is through a lack of regulation, not over reach. The banks that can't fail... failing, for example. And as we now know, the government is ultimately the barer of their risk.

The suggestion that stimulus didn't work seems largely associated with some kind of implication that free market economics will always result in positive growth. There has never been that guarantee. If the stimulus package turned a violent economic decline with potentially sky-rocketing unemployment (an idea that the neo-liberalism brethren would love to see) into a 5 or 10 year cushioned economic transition, is it still money poorly spent?

Even the IMF very recently said the US economy was in good shape - by international standards it is. Yet strangely, the stimulus is deemed to have failed. Such a suggestion is nothing more than hyperbole, framed in a way as though some people have access to a parallel dimension where stimulus wasn't applied and empirical evidence exists that shows that last quarter still had the exact same GDP.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I am arguing the vagueness of criticising government spending because the result isn't all peaches and cream. A very large portion of the western world is running government budget deficits as a result of the global financial crisis - a phenomonen hugely associated with free market economics in an ever globalising world. The only way it is associated with government is through a lack of regulation, not over reach. The banks that can't fail... failing, for example. And as we now know, the government is ultimately the barer of their risk.

I would add to this that if the banking system runs on fractional reserve lending we actually have to increase debt to grow the economy. That's how it works. The banks print new money on-demand but those loans need to be repaid with interest. Thus the banks take money from the rest of the market. In order for the market to grow then it isn't enough to just lend money, you need more money so the rest of the market can increase in volume. Printing new money without the demand to pay it back would be one thing, but that's not how it works as I understand it.

The one horrible thing about all of this is that the government ultimately is the people, regardless of whether or not it represents the people. So government debt becomes our debt. It's a win-win for the banking system as a whole. It simply can't fail. More than a bit disgusting in my opinion, and I'd have thought so even if I was a pure Capitalist.

 

[pucho812]

What I find most interesting about all if this, is that there are so many people who go " how do we stop donald trump?" Or some other derivative  concerning him and how his lack of this that and the other needs to be stopped. How he is bad, etc.
Yet not one persons sits there and asks How did our government fail us so badly that we got guys like donald trump looking like viable candidates to a lot of people.

 

[kambo]

Yet not one persons sits there and asks How did our government fail us so badly that we got guys like donald trump looking like viable candidates to a lot of people.

i hear it on TV all day long from Trump defender commentators...
yet, there is no such thing.
America is very strong and safe.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I am arguing the vagueness of criticising government spending because the result isn't all peaches and cream.

This is a very old debate (about Keynsian economics), I am saying that Hillary's plan for another $250B stimulus will not magically restore US business investment and private economy growth trends.

A very large portion of the western world is running government budget deficits as a result of the global financial crisis

I would distinguish between budget deficits and accumulated sovereign debt.

Governments historically operated with budget deficits that were mitigated by several percent GDP growth. GDP growth causes tax revenue growth that offsets deficit budget spending.  Sovereign debt expansion  is historically (for the US) caused by borrowing to finance foreign wars (we seem to be constantly at war with somebody for way too many years now). 

Expanding sovereign debt to pay for entitlements is a path to debt overload. We are already flirting with third wold debt levels at 100% of GDP.

- a phenomonen hugely associated with free market economics in an ever globalising world. The only way it is associated with government is through a lack of regulation, not over reach. The banks that can't fail... failing, for example. And as we now know, the government is ultimately the barer of their risk.

The financial crisis you mention was 7 or 8 years ago. Yes it was caused by poorly understood, under-regulated financial instruments (bundled sub-prime mortgages). This was also fueled by government's thumb on the scale over-promoting home ownership. A classic political mistake is to confuse correlation with causation. The politicians saw that homeowners had a better life outcome, so figured just help more people buy houses. The net result of this government "help" is we now have the lowest rate of home ownership (62.9%) since they started keeping records in 1965.  (and they still haven't addressed Fannie and Freddie, IMO complicit in the crisis. )

The suggestion that stimulus didn't work seems largely associated with some kind of implication that free market economics will always result in positive growth. There has never been that guarantee. If the stimulus package turned a violent economic decline with potentially sky-rocketing unemployment (an idea that the neo-liberalism brethren would love to see) into a 5 or 10 year cushioned economic transition, is it still money poorly spent?

I try to say what I mean. I am talking about what we need to do now from here. IMO Government spending is not a magic elixir that fixes everything. I have a list of suggestions, reforming tax policy is just the first on my list.

Even the IMF very recently said the US economy was in good shape - by international standards it is. Yet strangely, the stimulus is deemed to have failed.

We are in year 7  of the weakest economic recovery in recent history.  The stimulus prevented a deeper recession (depression?) but it has surely failed to return the economy to previous growth trends.  After this many years I am inclined to blame current economic policy, not some event that happened several years ago. It didn't somehow "break" the economy.

Such a suggestion is nothing more than hyperbole, framed in a way as though some people have access to a parallel dimension where stimulus wasn't applied and empirical evidence exists that shows that last quarter still had the exact same GDP.

Economics is not an exact science.  That said I do not expect to get a different result from doing the same thing for another 4 years.

JR