• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alan Greenspan to investors: 'Run for cover'

cabse5 said:
Since you're going that route, it took Donald Trump about 6 months to generate more than 2% growth per year which BO could never, on average, produce in his 8 years as president.
Click to expand...

It's misleading to compare two years to 8 years wait till the end of Trumps ( if he last that long which I doubt) term and see where the averages are. I could slice off 2 quarters out of Obama's 8 years and it will look better than anything that Trump's produced thus far but it would be misleading as well.
 
poweRob said:
What the trump tax breaks really did for the economy...
Corporate America gives out a record $1 trillion in stock buybacks

Corporate America celebrated the first full year under the new tax law by rolling out a record-setting $1 trillion of stock buybacks.

US companies, led by Lowe's (LOW) and AbbVie (ABBV), rewarded shareholders by unveiling $34.4 billion in buybacks last week, according to TrimTabs Investment Research. That lifted repurchase announcements above $1 trillion for the first time ever, TrimTabs said, exceeding the prior record of $781 billion set in 2015.​

How many times do we have to be shown that republican trickle down economics is a failure?
Click to expand...

It's NOT a failure, it's doing exactly what they want.
They sell the yokels some dumbass story about the rich being so full that they start vomiting up extra wealth and the yokels get to lap up little chunks of the excess emitus as it trickles down their massive chins and onto the floor.

The rich pocket the extra wealth, stiff the yokels, who crash and burn and blame libtards and "socialism" and the rich get ready for the next cycle. Lather, rinse, repeat with a brand new crop of dumb yokels.

"Socialism never took off in America because the poor see themselves not as an oppressed proletariat but instead as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." ---Steinbeck

"Mr. Hoover didn't know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But at least it will have passed through the little fella's hands." ---Will Rogers
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
It's misleading to compare two years to 8 years wait till the end of Trumps ( if he last that long which I doubt) term and see where the averages are. I could slice off 2 quarters out of Obama's 8 years and it will look better than anything that Trump's produced thus far but it would be misleading as well.
Click to expand...

How did anything BO did at any time of his presidency look better than what Trump has done economically?
 
cabse5 said:
And Donald Trump was screwed up by the massive regulations of the BO years. You have a point?
Click to expand...

:lol:

So when Obama left office, was the economy better or worse than when he started?


Or you could provide examples of your claim? :lamo
 
We haven't seen the irrational exuberance and euphoria that has preceded all other market tops. I don't think we've topped out just yet.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
"Mr. Hoover didn't know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But at least it will have passed through the little fella's hands." ---Will Rogers
Click to expand...

Great quote. I keep saying this and didn't know of this quote. And Will Rogers is one of the top three most quotable people ever.
 
cabse5 said:
How did anything BO did at any time of his presidency look better than what Trump has done economically?
Click to expand...


In Q2 2011 went to 4.7% from -.1% previous quarter.

in Q2 2014 went to 5.1% from -1% previous quarter. Obama had four quarters over 4%.


Here's the deal, you are not going to get a presidents true average until he fulfills at least one term.

Without it, you can't compare apples to oranges. You got a single cherry in an economic bowl which is starting to amass pits, so let time pass,
to see what the final bowl will look like.

Moreover, this December the stock market is doing worse than any December since the great depression, and this is valid because
Trump has made a point of bragging about the stock market under his leadership. Since we have not finished his first term, we have
to wait and see what the effect of his policies will be, because financial policies more often do not tell their tale until a full term has passed.

And, you ignore the disaster that Obama inherited, whereas Trump did not inherit such a disaster, nor where near what Obama inherited.


But this is all beside the point, Trump is surrounded by 17 known investigations, and he's likely to be revealed a criminal, which, if true, he will go down.

That's what matters right now. Screw the economics, they go up, they go down, the economy will survive any president, and it is foolish
to put all your eggs ( insofar as weighing a presidency ) in the one economic basket.
 
cabse5 said:
And Donald Trump was screwed up by the massive regulations of the BO years. You have a point?
Click to expand...


No, most of Trump's repeal of regs were necessary EPA regs, and now he is destroying the environment.

There is no real provable connection between his repeals and the economy, it's hype to even assert it.
 
OscarLevant said:
No, most of Trump's repeal of regs were necessary EPA regs, and now he is destroying the environment.

There is no real provable connection between his repeals and the economy, it's hype to even assert it.
Click to expand...

The environment is a different topic altogether. I will just say that environmental 'scientists' having their AGW ideology that man is the main or only causer of climate change is not proven...They base their entire beliefs and ways to solve climate change on a belief that isn't proven. This is why concerning oneself with, solely, restricting CO2 is a fallacy. It is not science.
 
cabse5 said:
Since you're going that route, it took Donald Trump about 6 months to generate more than 2% growth per year which BO could never, on average, produce in his 8 years as president.
Click to expand...

He did it by fueling debt, and putting us into a greater 'boom/bust' economy. When someone asked him about the debt becoming untentable, he responded 'I don't care, I won't be here anymore'
 
cabse5 said:
The environment is a different topic altogether. I will just say that environmental 'scientists' having their AGW ideology that man is the main or only causer of climate change is not proven...They base their entire beliefs and ways to solve climate change on a belief that isn't proven. This is why concerning oneself with, solely, restricting CO2 is a fallacy. It is not science.
Click to expand...


Science, did you say science?

climatechange.jpg
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_.../File:Climate_science_opinion_graph_3Path.svg


So NASA is not science?

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken.[1] Among the most-cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.[2][3] It is "extremely likely"[4] that this warming arises from "... human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases ..."[4] in the atmosphere.[5] Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect
Click to expand...

Human influence on the climate system is clear.[14] It is extremely likely (95-100% probability)[15] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010
Click to expand...


American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG)

The official position statement from AIPG on the Environment states that "combustion of fossil fuel include and the generation of GHGs [greenhouse gases] including carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Emissions of GHGs are perceived by some to be one of the largest, global environmental concerns related to energy production due to potential effects on the global energy system and possibly global climate. Fossil fuel use is the primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of GHGs since industrialization".[125]

In March 2010, AIPG's Executive Director issued a statement regarding polarization of opinions on climate change within the membership and announced that the AIPG Executive had made a decision to cease publication of articles and opinion pieces concerning climate change in AIPG's news journal, The Professional Geologist
Click to expand...
 
tres borrachos said:
When and if the market crashes, or continues its downward spiral, I predict the citizens of Trump Fan Nation will blame it on the Democrats.
Click to expand...

Of course. Even if it crashes before January, once the democrats in the House are sworn in it will instantly be their fault.
 
cabse5 said:
The environment is a different topic altogether. I will just say that environmental 'scientists' having their AGW ideology that man is the main or only causer of climate change is not proven...They base their entire beliefs and ways to solve climate change on a belief that isn't proven. This is why concerning oneself with, solely, restricting CO2 is a fallacy. It is not science.
Click to expand...

'let's no do anything about global warming because there is uncertainty about its cause' is an extremely short-sighted response
fix the damned problem so that our kids and grandkids do not face the consequences of our generation's stupidity
 
Helix said:
But the orange clown says everything is super.
Click to expand...

He is an Orange-American.

Well I assume he is American. Have we seen his long form birth certificate?
 
RAMOSS said:
He did it by fueling debt, and putting us into a greater 'boom/bust' economy. When someone asked him about the debt becoming untentable, he responded 'I don't care, I won't be here anymore'
Click to expand...

You don't seem to disagree that Trump is better at manipulating the economy for the good of Americans than BO. You disagree with Trump's methods. Mebe you're a Keynesian economist:lamo?
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
'let's no do anything about global warming because there is uncertainty about its cause' is an extremely short-sighted response
fix the damned problem so that our kids and grandkids do not face the consequences of our generation's stupidity
Click to expand...

Or we could do nothing to alleviate problems with global warming just satisfy our ideological (non-scientific) beliefs. That's what's being done, now, when only CO2 is being restricted. CO2 is less than 5% of all greenhouse gases. Maybe you don't believe greenhouse gases trap heat in earth's atmosphere causing it to warm?
 
cabse5 said:
Or we could do nothing to alleviate problems with global warming just satisfy our ideological (non-scientific) beliefs. That's what's being done, now, when only CO2 is being restricted. CO2 is less than 5% of all greenhouse gases. Maybe you don't believe greenhouse gases trap heat in earth's atmosphere causing it to warm?
Click to expand...

then your position has moved to 'let's do nothing now because we are uncertain that our efforts to curb global warming will be adequate'

let our kids and grandkids inherit this problem and a worsened planet because we chose to do nothing
 
cabse5 said:
You don't seem to disagree that Trump is better at manipulating the economy for the good of Americans than BO. You disagree with Trump's methods. Mebe you're a Keynesian economist:lamo?
Click to expand...

The boom/bust is a consequence is doing it BADLY.
 
justabubba said:
then your position has moved to 'let's do nothing now because we are uncertain that our efforts to curb global warming will be adequate'

let our kids and grandkids inherit this problem and a worsened planet because we chose to do nothing
Click to expand...

Quit the rhetoric. If one is concerned with climate change as I also am, restrict all the major greenhouse gases to some degree Water vapor is 95% of all greenhouse gases. Methane is less than 1% of all greenhouse gases.

Do you want to actually alleviate climate change or do you just want to satisfy some ideological goal? That's my question to environmental 'scientists', for example.
 
cabse5 said:
Quit the rhetoric. If one is concerned with climate change as I also am, restrict all the major greenhouse gases to some degree Water vapor is 95% of all greenhouse gases. Methane is less than 1% of all greenhouse gases.

Do you want to actually alleviate climate change or do you just want to satisfy some ideological goal? That's my question to environmental 'scientists', for example.
Click to expand...

then you have changed your position again to 'i want to do something only i have no idea what it is'

while insisting the science which explains the problem is erroneous
 
RAMOSS said:
The boom/bust is a consequence is doing it BADLY.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Fed's role in the downturn of the Stock Market (not the US economy). Don't forget the roles of the downturns of the Chinese economy ((due to tariffs?) and European economies (not the US economy)) in the downturn of the Stock Market.

IOW, the Stock Market decline doesn't reflect a decline in the US economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom