U.S. Elections: The Trumph of the Will

[BloodRider]

5 hours ago, Altherion said:

If the Democrats truly wanted to address inequality and stagnant or falling median income, they can hardly have asked for a better chance than they had in 2009. They had the Presidency, substantial majorities in both houses of Congress and all of the anger of a public suffering from a severe economic downturn. We could have had a new Hundred Days, but instead we got bailouts and legislation written with input and consent from the corporate world. I am reasonably certain that no solution to this will come from the Democrats -- at least not in their current incarnation.

On the scale of things that are True, I rate this TRUMP!

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, BloodRider said:

On the scale of things that are True, I rate this TRUMP!

Seriously.

@Altherion- what is your proposal? You clearly want zero cooperation with corporations despite their employing a majority of citizens in the US. They had a massive recession as well as fighting in two unpopular wars. And you had the republican congress pledging to fight every single god damn thing it could along the way (and did so - this was emphatically NOT the first 100 days like it was with FDR, where congress gave FDR essentially massive blank checks). 

But what would you have done differently? What proposals to fight inequity would you have done, and how would they have been not immediately filibustered by Republicans? 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

14 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

You must admit, it's an impressive feat to make Dems treat Cruz as the good guy.

Cruz has beliefs, Trump has none.

Even if I disagree with every single one of his beliefs. I mean if Ted Cruz said the sky was blue, I'd check that it wasn't purple or grey or something.

Sure he's a loathsome asshole, but he's a loathsome asshole who feeds off of boos and jeers. We got the hero we needed, not the hero we wanted.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Cruz has beliefs, Trump has none.

Even if I disagree with every single one of his beliefs. I mean if Ted Cruz said the sky was blue, I'd check that it wasn't purple or grey or something.

Sure he's a loathsome asshole, but he's a loathsome asshole who feeds off of boos and jeers. We got the hero we needed, not the hero we wanted.

Ish, but yeah. Cruz is definitely the Beast. And Trump is Smiler. 

[DunderMifflin]

Boos don't Faze Cruz 2020!

[alguien]

11 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Boos don't Faze Cruz 2020!

Bwahahaha! Reminds me of this: 

 

Ted Cruz is NOURISHED by your hatred!

[DunderMifflin]

Haters gonna hate.

Credit due though, someone else on the previous thread coined the Boos don't Faze Cruz slogan, I forgot who. I'm never going to let it go. It's too damn good.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

5 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Haters gonna hate.

Credit due though, someone else on the previous thread coined the Boos don't Faze Cruz slogan, I forgot who. I'm never going to let it go. It's too damn good.

It was me, but it was also entirely accidental.

[Altherion]

34 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

@Altherion- what is your proposal? You clearly want zero cooperation with corporations despite their employing a majority of citizens in the US. They had a massive recession as well as fighting in two unpopular wars. And you had the republican congress pledging to fight every single god damn thing it could along the way (and did so - this was emphatically NOT the first 100 days like it was with FDR, where congress gave FDR essentially massive blank checks). 

But what would you have done differently? What proposals to fight inequity would you have done, and how would they have been not immediately filibustered by Republicans? 

Why are you asking me? I am neither a sociologist nor an economist. The government can draw upon any number of experts from any field and in fact this is exactly what FDR did. Also, I never said anything about zero cooperation with corporations. My objection was to legislation being drawn up in a way that requires the consent of the industries it affects.

I can tell you how to avoid Republican filibusters though: simply change the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster. It is a historical accident, it was never intended by the founders (who clearly specified when a supermajority is necessary), it was not debated before the implementation and in general it's a terrible idea. In fact, eliminating the filibuster would have gotten everyone's attention and demonstrated that the government means business this time.

[Kalbear]

14 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Why are you asking me? I am neither a sociologist nor an economist. The government can draw upon any number of experts from any field and in fact this is exactly what FDR did. Also, I never said anything about zero cooperation with corporations. My objection was to legislation being drawn up in a way that requires the consent of the industries it affects.

You objected to them doing "bailouts and legislation written with input and consent from the corporate world." And that was, as you say, with a fuck ton of experts from most fields saying that this was the right stuff to do. I'm asking you because they did as far as I can tell basically all the right things, in the way you wanted them to do (consulting experts across the spectrum). And you object to that - so if you object to that, what is your alternative? 

14 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I can tell you how to avoid Republican filibusters though: simply change the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster. It is a historical accident, it was never intended by the founders (who clearly specified when a supermajority is necessary), it was not debated before the implementation and in general it's a terrible idea. In fact, eliminating the filibuster would have gotten everyone's attention and demonstrated that the government means business this time.

That is considered to be a bridge that no one wants to cross, because it allows simple majorities to rule. The government would rather nothing happen than have a congress that cannot be consulted as a minority. It's certainly doable, however. It's an interesting thought experiment to consider. If it had been done in 2009, a lot more things would have become law then - and then we would have likely had an absurd amount of vetoed bills after. 

Maybe that's not the worst thing. 

[Altherion]

9 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

You objected to them doing "bailouts and legislation written with input and consent from the corporate world." And that was, as you say, with a fuck ton of experts from most fields saying that this was the right stuff to do. I'm asking you because they did as far as I can tell basically all the right things, in the way you wanted them to do (consulting experts across the spectrum). And you object to that - so if you object to that, what is your alternative?

All of the experts in the world aren't going to help a government if its priorities are wrong. The primary goals should have been to improve the well-being of the middle and lower classes and reduce inequality. Instead, the primary goals were to protect the financial sector and make sure the stock market goes back up. The government succeeded spectacularly in what it was trying to accomplish, it's just that the latter has very little to do with the welfare of most Americans.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Altherion said:

All of the experts in the world aren't going to help a government if its priorities are wrong. The primary goals should have been to improve the well-being of the middle and lower classes and reduce inequality. Instead, the primary goals were to protect the financial sector and make sure the stock market goes back up. The government succeeded spectacularly in what it was trying to accomplish, it's just that the latter has very little to do with the welfare of most Americans.

Source? Because I think doing things like a massive auto bailout or extending low credit or putting in affordable healthcare are not actually making the stock price go up. But you do, so you clearly have sources for your assertions, right?

[Jaxom 1974]

2 hours ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Seriously, this speech...what the ever loving FUCK, Donald Trump?

 

The mental gymnastics of the supporters...Mindy boggling...

[all swedes are racist]

7 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

...Mindy boggling...

Who is that? Another 'speech writer'?

[Kalbear]

LOL

Quote

please enjoy new tingler "Slammed In The Butt By Domald Tromp's Attempt To Avoid Accusations Of Plagiarism By Removing All Facts Or Concrete Plans From His Republican National Convention Speech" out not on amazon. SHARE TO PROVE LOVE thank you

https://www.amazon.com/Accusations-Plagiarism-Removing-Republican-Convention-ebook/dp/B01IWVBM6O/

[Xray the Enforcer]

12 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

The mental gymnastics of the supporters...Mindy boggling...

Yo you keep my friend Mindy out of this goddammit. She's the only good thing (besides pizza and Wu Tang Clan) to come out of Staten Island.

[TheKitttenGuard]

News coming in that it is Tim Kaine is the VP pick.

[Kalbear]

13 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

News coming in that it is Tim Kaine is the VP pick.

Not surprising. A smidgen disappointing, but Kaine represented the easiest 'do no harm' pick she could make. 

[Altherion]

57 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Source? Because I think doing things like a massive auto bailout or extending low credit or putting in affordable healthcare are not actually making the stock price go up. But you do, so you clearly have sources for your assertions, right?

The effect of the massive auto bailout on the stock prices of car companies is self-evident. "Putting in affordable healthcare" would not impact stock prices much, but what was actually done was closer to "force people to buy health insurance or pay a fee" which had predictable effects on the stocks of insurance companies:

Quote

 

More coverage = higher revenue and profits. UnitedHealth has outperformed the broader stock market by a wide margin since the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, was signed into law in March 2010.

The stock also beat the market last year as most of the provisions of the ACA went into effect and consumers started to receive coverage.

Simply put, greater access to health insurance has led to more customers for the insurance giants. And UnitedHealth is not the only company to benefit.

The other four members of the so-called Big Five health insurers -- Aetna (AET), Cigna (CI), Humana (HUM), and Anthem (ANTM) (formerly WellPoint) -- have all beaten the S&P 500 over the past five years or so as well

 

The low interest rates and "quantitative easing" affect the entire system rather than individual industries. You can read about it here:

Quote

Quantitative easing also pushes down interest rates. This damages the returns for traditionally safe investments such as financial vehicles including money market accounts, certificates of deposit (CDs), Treasurys and highly rated bonds. Investors are forced into relatively riskier investments to find a return. Many of these investors weight their portfolios towards equities, pushing up stock market prices.

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Altherion said:

The effect of the massive auto bailout on the stock prices of car companies is self-evident. "Putting in affordable healthcare" would not impact stock prices much, but what was actually done was closer to "force people to buy health insurance or pay a fee" which had predictable effects on the stocks of insurance companies:

The low interest rates and "quantitative easing" affect the entire system rather than individual industries. You can read about it here:

 

Okay - but you stated that this was the only goal. What's the source? The auto bailout had the primary effect of keeping about 200,000 jobs in existence as the main goal. You believe that was an ancillary goal, right? If so, provide a source.

Furthermore, the other 5 health insurance companies (as well as United Health) have beaten the S+P 500 for the last 17 years barring one year, so putting in the ACA isn't a particularly good argument there. There isn't even strong correlation. 

The main thing you continue to fail to do is demonstrate that these were being done not to stop inequity. Which doesn't appear to be supported by anything. Shockingly the stock market also went up substantially during the FDR's New Deal - was that being done to simply boost stock prices and inequity?