• 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!

Failure Catching Up to Trump

If that is the case, then no President ever influences the economy by his decisions. Simply stated for you and using your post as support, Trump and the Republicans taking control of the country was a non-event. No benefits came of it.

All Presidents and their decisions (such as Trump's Trade War) are pivotal as far as whether the economy booms or busts, unemployment goes up or down, etc.

Your comment added nothing to my original comment as it says that the President and his decisions are unimportant. That is BS

In the big scheme of things, few actions of a POTUS (which do not require actions by congress) are lasting. Many have asserted (and are still asserting) that Trump is simply enjoying the economic trends that started under Obama - in other words, he hasn't done much of anything. Changing a few tariff rates, if that is your major concern, can be undone as easily as they were done.
 
In the big scheme of things, few actions of a POTUS (which do not require actions by congress) are lasting. Many have asserted (and are still asserting) that Trump is simply enjoying the economic trends that started under Obama - in other words, he hasn't done much of anything. Changing a few tariff rates, if that is your major concern, can be undone as easily as they were done.

In just one month (October) the trade war cost us $6.2 billion dollars and that is 100% Trumps fault. At that rate each month it can be said that in the 9 months the trade war has been going on, $56 billion might have been lost.

If you don't think this Trump decision is hurting our economy, you are blind.
 
In just one month (October) the trade war cost us $6.2 billion dollars and that is 100% Trumps fault. At that rate each month it can be said that in the 9 months the trade war has been going on, $56 billion might have been lost.

If you don't think this Trump decision is hurting our economy, you are blind.

So apparently, the latest on Lighthizer's negotiations with China over unfair trade and industrial practices and IP theft is that Lihgthizer is working on terms that would give the US the ability to snap back to sanctions v China for unfair trade and industrial practices or IP Theft without China having the ability to respond in kind. Watch....if that is what they are negotiating and the reach agreement, the effect dates will be somewhere out in the 2030's at best.
 
In just one month (October) the trade war cost us $6.2 billion dollars and that is 100% Trumps fault. At that rate each month it can be said that in the 9 months the trade war has been going on, $56 billion might have been lost.

If you don't think this Trump decision is hurting our economy, you are blind.

I am in no way defending Trump's decisions to tweak tariff rates but to assert that they will have some (major?) lasting effect and thus we should freak out over such a bad executive decision is ridiculous. By all means, let the demorat's POTUS candidates run on their plans to improve the (failing?) US economy by setting much more favorable (wise?) tariff rates.
 
I love the work I am pulling in with this economy.

I am referring about 75% of my potential customers to other small business buddies of mine because I am almost overwhelmed.

The nerdy & lazy one trick ponies on here that never learned anything about versatility can cry all they like about the economy, but the reality is that there has never been a better time for a small business guy like me.
 
I am in no way defending Trump's decisions to tweak tariff rates but to assert that they will have some (major?) lasting effect and thus we should freak out over such a bad executive decision is ridiculous. By all means, let the demorat's POTUS candidates run on their plans to improve the (failing?) US economy by setting much more favorable (wise?) tariff rates.

I think you are not looking at past history of the 1934 Trade War which extended the depression the U.S. by about 6 years.

Herbert Hoover was the one that made the decision on the Trade War and that decision hurt our economy by that period of time.
 
I think you are not looking at past history of the 1934 Trade War which extended the depression the U.S. by about 6 years.

Herbert Hoover was the one that made the decision on the Trade War and that decision hurt our economy by that period of time.

Again, I am not saying that Trump's trade decisions are wise - only that they are his to make and that demorats are free to campaign making promises to do something different.
 
Again, I am not saying that Trump's trade decisions are wise - only that they are his to make and that demorats are free to campaign making promises to do something different.

The initial comment was about the incompetency of Trump and my idea that things will go south from the peak seen last year in October. This comment has nothing to do about "freedom to decide". It is all about the best of the Trump effect is over and now it will be all south.
 
The initial comment was about the incompetency of Trump and my idea that things will go south from the peak seen last year in October. This comment has nothing to do about "freedom to decide". It is all about the best of the Trump effect is over and now it will be all south.

OK, if that occurs then Trump will lose the POTUS election in 2020.
 
I love the work I am pulling in with this economy.

I am referring about 75% of my potential customers to other small business buddies of mine because I am almost overwhelmed.

The nerdy & lazy one trick ponies on here that never learned anything about versatility can cry all they like about the economy, but the reality is that there has never been a better time for a small business guy like me.

Enjoy it while you can because from here it will only deteriorate. It will not get better. The peak was reached and it is all south from here as Trump does not have the capability of fixing anything. He does have the capability of making things worse with the only question being whether heading south will be a fast or slow pace or a combination of both.
 
Speaking as pne of those independents, I can tell you I won't be voting for Trump, or any Republican.

I don't like most of the Democrats who have thrown their hats into the ring, either. I was kind of liking Hickenlooper until he flat out refused to call himself a capitalist. I understand why he wouldn't want that label, as most Americans seem to think that liberalism and socialism are incompatible with capitalism. The truth is that they are not mutually exclusive, and we need both.

I consider myself to be a Social Capitalist -- meaning that yes, there are social programs that we can and should institute for the good of we the people, and we can pay for those programs if we get smarter about how we spend revenue. We need capitalism in order to HAVE that revenue, but pure capitalism without socially motivated regulations leads to the tyranny of the haves over the have nots.

there is no such thing as a social capitalist. You either believe in free markets or you believe in government controlled markets.
which is it? you can't have both.
 
there is no such thing as a social capitalist. You either believe in free markets or you believe in government controlled markets.
which is it? you can't have both.

No such thing ... yet here I sit.

"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets."

Nowhere in that description, nor in any definition I've seen of capitalism, does the phrase "free market" appear. Competitive and free are not the same thing. Capitalism is private ownership of businesses large and small. Nowhere is there a rule that says regulations are incompatible with that private ownership.

Perhaps you should brush up on your isms? Just a thought ...

:thinking
 
No such thing ... yet here I sit.

"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets."

Nowhere in that description, nor in any definition I've seen of capitalism, does the phrase "free market" appear. Competitive and free are not the same thing. Capitalism is private ownership of businesses large and small. Nowhere is there a rule that says regulations are incompatible with that private ownership.

Perhaps you should brush up on your isms? Just a thought ...

:thinking

Yes you should. by the very definition.

free market
an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.
those same private businesses that reside in a capitalistic society.

you seriously don't know what you are talking about.

socialism:
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them

is 100% the opposite of capitalism.
 
Yes you should. by the very definition.

free market
an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.
those same private businesses that reside in a capitalistic society.

you seriously don't know what you are talking about.

socialism:
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them

is 100% the opposite of capitalism.

You're the one using socialism. I never used that ism here.

There is NOTHING about capitalism that says it must be unregulated. Your phrase "unrestricted competition" is not necessary for a capitalist system. As a social capitalist (and don't bother looking it up, it's my own label) I think we can initiate a lot of the social programs that most Americans want without sacrificing free enterprize, innovation, and entrepreneurship. But capitalism without socially motovated regulations leads to the tyranny of the haves over the have nots, which is right where we're headed.
 
You're the one using socialism. I never used that ism here.

There is NOTHING about capitalism that says it must be unregulated. Your phrase "unrestricted competition" is not necessary for a capitalist system. As a social capitalist (and don't bother looking it up, it's my own label) I think we can initiate a lot of the social programs that most Americans want without sacrificing free enterprize, innovation, and entrepreneurship. But capitalism without socially motovated regulations leads to the tyranny of the haves over the have nots, which is right where we're headed.

No you said you were a socialist capitalist.
the two cannot exist together.

sorry you don't get to make **** up and not be able to defend against it.
words have meanings and you don't get to make up your own definitions.

actually you can't initiate social programs without sacrificing those things.
the more social programs you implement the more restriction you place on a free society.

it means that government has to take more of the production to pay for it.
these "free" programs that leftists like to throw around cost trillions of dollars.

all of that has to be paid for. The government doesn't create anything so they have to
take it from those that do.

we are far from that. our market is too fluid but socialism is the first way towards that have and have nots
and the further down the scale you slide the worse the gap gets between the have and the have nots.
 
Last edited:
No you said you were a socialist capitalist.
the two cannot exist together.

sorry you don't get to make **** up and not be able to defend against it.
words have meanings and you don't get to make up your own definitions.

actually you can't initiate social programs without sacrificing those things.
the more social programs you implement the more restriction you place on a free society.

it means that government has to take more of the production to pay for it.
these "free" programs that leftists like to throw around cost trillions of dollars.

all of that has to be paid for. The government doesn't create anything so they have to
take it from those that do.

we are far from that. our market is too fluid but socialism is the first way towards that have and have nots
and the further down the scale you slide the worse the gap gets between the have and the have nots.

Look again. I call myself a social capitalist. You brought socialist and socialism into this, not me. Besides, this is ME defining my OWN ideology, so for the sake of argument, can we just assume that I know more about myself than you do? And you're quite wrong, ludin, I most certainly DO get to define my own self. Very arrogant of you to think otherwise.

You are also quite wrong about what we can or can't have in a system that includes both strong and supportive social programs right alongside a robust capitalist-based, personally owned economy. What production does the government have to take over if we allow all citizens to opt in to Medicare? The government already administers that program, along with Social Security and education. So what production are you talking about? It sounds like you're giving me right wing rhetoric with no actual substance. And BTW, since you seem woefully unaware of how it works, Medicare isn't free. They deduct money from your Social Security check, plus most of us buy supplemental plans from the health insurance industry. Is the government producing that?

We can pay for it if we have the political will to say no to corporate welfare, roll back the gigantic tax breaks Trump just gave to the rich, and spend our revenue wisely. Yeah, I know ... good luck with that and all ... but we COULD very easily have it all, or at least much better for the people who actually DO all the work.

I hope the day comes when you begin to vote in favor of your own interests, and not in the interests of those at the top that you've been told to support.
 
Look again. I call myself a social capitalist. You brought socialist and socialism into this, not me. Besides, this is ME defining my OWN ideology, so for the sake of argument, can we just assume that I know more about myself than you do? And you're quite wrong, ludin, I most certainly DO get to define my own self. Very arrogant of you to think otherwise.
No you brought it up when you called yourself a social capitalist whatever the hell that is.
No you don't. you don't get to make up an indefensible position and claim i'm right your wrong.

You are also quite wrong about what we can or can't have in a system that includes both strong and supportive social programs right alongside a robust capitalist-based, personally owned economy. What production does the government have to take over if we allow all citizens to opt in to Medicare? The government already administers that program, along with Social Security and education. So what production are you talking about? It sounds like you're giving me right wing rhetoric with no actual substance. And BTW, since you seem woefully unaware of how it works, Medicare isn't free. They deduct money from your Social Security check, plus most of us buy supplemental plans from the health insurance industry. Is the government producing that?

Actually you can't. medicare for all costs ~35-40 trillion dollars. How do you think the government is going to pay for it? by taking the production of people.
that is what taxes are. Taxes by definition is the seize of production from those that produce. yes you are woefully unaware that is evident because
you just make up things that don't exist.

We can pay for it if we have the political will to say no to corporate welfare, roll back the gigantic tax breaks Trump just gave to the rich, and spend our revenue wisely. Yeah, I know ... good luck with that and all ... but we COULD very easily have it all, or at least much better for the people who actually DO all the work.

This is called ignorance. those little tax cuts wouldn't pay for 1 year.
even if you collapsed all government spending into your glutted program you would still be about 10-20 trillion short/10 years.
that money has to come from somewhere.

I hope the day comes when you begin to vote in favor of your own interests, and not in the interests of those at the top that you've been told to support.

I do. that is why i vote for less government and more responsible government.
I support myself and no one else and when i have people like you that want others to support you
i oppose it fully.
 
No you brought it up when you called yourself a social capitalist whatever the hell that is.
No you don't. you don't get to make up an indefensible position and claim i'm right your wrong.



Actually you can't. medicare for all costs ~35-40 trillion dollars. How do you think the government is going to pay for it? by taking the production of people.
that is what taxes are. Taxes by definition is the seize of production from those that produce. yes you are woefully unaware that is evident because
you just make up things that don't exist.



This is called ignorance. those little tax cuts wouldn't pay for 1 year.
even if you collapsed all government spending into your glutted program you would still be about 10-20 trillion short/10 years.
that money has to come from somewhere.



I do. that is why i vote for less government and more responsible government.
I support myself and no one else and when i have people like you that want others to support you
i oppose it fully.

There's just no end to your arrogance.

A social capitalist is what I call myself, and this entire exchange with you consisted of me defending my position. I did not call myself a socialist. I did not claim a preference for a government defined by socialism. You INFERRED both of those things. And I did say you shouldn't bother googling the term social capitalist, since I made that up for myself.

No one knows how much Medicare for all would cost. Those are guesses. But think, please: everyone with a legal job pays for it now. Everyone on Medicare pays for it now. Currently, premiums for individual coverage average over $550 per month. On top of that, most have large deductibles and copayments, and their insurance doesn't cover some things at all, so who knows what the actual cost may be? The average annual costs per person hit $10,345 in 2016. I couldn't find the 2017 numbers, but here's 2018:

Health Insurance: Premiums and Increases

"In 2018 the average annual premium for employer-based family coverage rose 5 percent to $19,616; for single coverage, premiums rose 3 percent to $6,896. Covered workers contributed 18 percent of the cost for single coverage and 29 percent of the cost for family coverage, on average, with considerable variation across firms."

Let's compare that to what I pay for my coverage.

$134 for Medicare
$149 for what Blue Shield calls their Mazeratti plan

Total: $283 per month, $3,396 per year. Already I'm $3,500 ahead. Now, since I have pre-existing conditions, I chose that high cost supplement. Most people opt for much less expensive ones. But mine has zero deductibles and zero co-payments. And no, there is no shortage of medical care providers willing to take Medicare patients. I had my left knee replaced last week. I was not restricted to any HMO or state-run facility. I went online, chose the best rated orthopedic surgeon I could find, called up and made an appointment. One week later, I entered the newest, finest, most modern high tech hospital in town. Since coming home last Friday, I've had home visits from occupational and physical therapists, with the latter on a five day a week schedule for the next few weeks. AT NO TIME has any cash or plastic come out of my wallet. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Now, if the average American could get such stellar coverage for even DOUBLE that, it would still be far less than what they pay now once you add in deductibles and co-payments and payments for stuff that just isn't covered.

Instead of accusing me of ignorance, why not educate yourself on the actual facts:

- Socialism and capitalism can easily co-exist.
- Medicare for all can cost as little or as much as we the people choose, IF we have the will to choose it. There are so many wasteful things we could STOP paying for!
- I can call myself a social capitalist, or anything else I choose. I don't need your permission.

And where, please tell me, did I ask you to pay for a ****ing thing on my account? I worked for 48 years, no one ever gave me anything. Certainly not some pompous little rightie sitting here arguing his nonsense online on a regular work day. Or maybe, like me, you're retired after a long, taxpaying career? The pompous fits at least. (And remember, the snarkiness and the personal insults started with you.)

We ALL take full advantage of the rights and privileges of being American citizens. You're getting the same "free stuff" as I am, but at least I am aware and admit it. And that right there, the self awareness and the depth of knowledge regarding those rights and privileges, is the biggest difference between us.

Please question your sources. I certainly do.

:peace
 
Last edited:
Smoke and mirrors can only carry you so far.

Warning signs for Trump loom

Trump has often claimed that he is presiding over the "greatest economy in the history of our country." But his foundational political promise to eliminate the US trade deficit suffered a blow with new figures showing that the gap between imports and the amount of goods and services that the US sells abroad has grown $100 billion since Trump took office...

Signs that North Korea could be preparing a missile or satellite launch and its continued expansion of an atomic arsenal undercut the President's claims that his daring outreach to the isolated state has ended its nuclear threat.
And a rise in crossings across the southern border — while playing into Trump's claims of a crisis in the short term, contradict his wider argument that hardline enforcement policies are the best way to manage immigration and suggest his totemic political plan for a border wall may be ignoring the real problem.
In short--Trump was full of ****, just like we said he was.

It's ignorant to think Trump is not seeing great success with his economic policy. It is also ignorant to think that fixing the problems with the trade deficit will materialize overnight. All of these things are ongoing and works in progress. You must expect some up an down on any project or policy plan before you reach your goal. We are in better shape than we were under previous Presidents to fix these problem that have been mostly not addressed by former administrations.
 
Back
Top Bottom