If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
The president-elect ousted former Rep. Mike Rogers from the team in what one source called a 'Stalinesque purge of people close' to Chris Christie.
Something I didn't know. Chris Christie as a Prosecutor sent Jared Kushner's dad to prison on 18 felony counts.
Yup. I opined as much on the day it happened. Rudy G was also a Federal Prosecutor and put several members of the Bonano crime family in prison. This qualifies him to handle the Clinton Family.
I am sitting here, quivering, in my safe space over a microaggression you committed.
I consider myself a liberal. Liberal comes from the word Liberty, and it is about those folks who value liberty and hate tyranny. This was clearly understood in the 1980's when I was actually called a "liberal"
Now, with no significant change in my views, I am called a racist. I am called this by folks who call themselves Progressives, which is what Richard Nixon called himself. He tried to use the IRS against his enemies and he created the EPA.
I propose that you might call Progressives Progs, mainly because it is just plain difficult to come up with a word for "supporter of tyranny". Tyrann-osaurs might insult the pre-history sector of the economy, so we can't have that.
I'm for Progs. Has a nice ring.
Last edited by Da Geezer; November 15, 2016, 10:57 PM.
Yup. I opined as much on the day it happened. Rudy G was also a Federal Prosecutor and put several members of the Bonano crime family in prison. This qualifies him to handle the Clinton Family.
You think he's actually going to go after the Clintons. That's adorable.
1. They're his friends. 2. Witchhunting is political idiocy, which I suppose is why he sold it so hard to America's lowest common denominator...
Last edited by Kstat; November 15, 2016, 11:12 PM.
Bannon is associated with Brietbart News a conservative group who has been accused of ideology driven journalism. Brietbart News supported Trump's successful run for the Presidency. Bannon was recently publically named Trump's Chief Strategist.
It's worth reading a bit about him. I heard a piece on NPR involving an interview with one of his close aids who was asked to comment on the kind of strategies Bannon would be advising President Trump to adopt.
That Bannon (Brietbart News) has been labeled "a fringe right wing curiosity, ultraconservative, misogynistic, xenophobic and racist." Questions have arisen about how such a man could have the ear of the President and what this meant.
The interviewee said it was unlikely that Bannon would act in a way similar to his behavior, fairly or unfairly characterized as above, while managing Brietbart News then serving as an advisor to Trump.
I read this as a statement that Trump's presidential campaign, designed to appeal to some of the more base (misogynist, xenophobic and racist) ideologies of voters he wanted to snag, was a political ploy and did not represent the ideological thinking of Donald Trump or Bannon. It's really too early to tell if that is an accurate statement or not.
Last edited by Jeff Buchanan; November 16, 2016, 09:15 AM.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. JH chased Saban from Alabama and caused Day, at the point of the OSU AD's gun, to make major changes to his staff just to beat Michigan. Love it. It's Moore!!!! time
So, in the end, expansion or recession will depend on the balance between macroeconomic and trade measures. My own guess is the first will dominate, and growth will be sustained, at least for some time. Will it be enough to satisfy those who voted for Donald Trump, worried about their incomes and their futures? I am not so sure. Growth will indeed lift most boats. But many measures will push in the opposite direction. Lower corporate taxes, lower personal taxes on the rich, and financial deregulation will increase the share of output going to capital (this probably explains in part what is happening to the stock market). The (now partial?) dismantling of Obamacare, if it is to happen, will not help the twenty or so million who benefit from it today. Tariffs on foreign goods may save some middle class jobs but will destroy others and increase the cost of living for those at the bottom end of the income distribution. Inequality may well go up, not down.
I think it is clear from a historical perspective that moving to the right with respect to macroeconomic policy has not benefited everyone and has been responsible for accumulation of capital in fewer hands while increasing the gap between the rich and the poor.
Conservationism, in general, sees no role for Government in narrowing the gap relying instead on capital markets to do that or dismissively ignoring that gap altogether by arguing that you get what you work for. If, in fact, capital markets were entirely free, that might be the case. They aren't. The next question then becomes to what level are we willing to accept the regulatory role of Government.
I'd like that debate to be happening during this administration but it is more likely that increasing polarization of the two sides of the debate is going to happen.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. JH chased Saban from Alabama and caused Day, at the point of the OSU AD's gun, to make major changes to his staff just to beat Michigan. Love it. It's Moore!!!! time
Tariffs on foreign goods may save some middle class jobs but will destroy others and increase the cost of living for those at the bottom end of the income distribution. Inequality may well go up, not down.
Yep, that's the very logical conclusion I've been trying to point out to a lot of people who rail against the trade deals. Be prepared to pay significantly more for goods across a broad spectrum.
When Howard Dean ran, he had a riff where he said he was going to raise the prices at Walmart due to his brand of protectionism. I'm not sure framing it that way won him any votes.
Tweet
Comment