Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

Hack, please imagine that the "pie" is 7% bigger next year. That is roughly $ 1.25 TRILLION bigger. Any growth we have now (1.5%) almost all goes to the top 20%. And I've argued even that tiny growth is vastly overstated because spending on things like the EPA are counted as "contrubutors" to GDP when history will show they actually stymie the economy with regulations ( the $1.9 T we have talked about previously)


Not sure your point here. You seem to be making mine, which is that growth in and of itself isn't what we ought to be looking at. The first question is ``for whom?'' The second is ``at what cost''? One could use lax regulation to shift costs from the corporate balance sheet to the public one, in the form of messes to be cleaned up later or public goods impaired that must be replaced. You could grow the economy by reviving the coal industry, at a cost of economic growth opportunities destroyed in the future. But I agree with you that what growth we get under Trump isn't likely to significantly benefit anyone middle-class on down.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Jeff Sessions' nomination to the District Court couldn't even get out of committee back in the 80's. And now he's going to be AG of the USA.

[froot loops]

Only the best people!

[Da Geezer]

....But I agree with you that what growth we get under Trump isn't likely to significantly benefit anyone middle-class on down.

No, that is almost the opposite of what I said. Under Obama, growth has been close to zero. I've actually argued to you that growth is well below zero which explains (1) why more 25-54 men are out of the work force than in 1930 at the height of the Great Depression. That's also (2) why there has been no wage growth since 1999 (for working people). That is also (3) why interest rates are close to zero (but going to rise next month). Under Obama, the upper 10%, mostly dealers in paper, and the lowest 10% (welfare) have done great. They belong to the Democrat Party.

An increased growth rate typically is spread throughout the economy. Again, I know you like to look at it as a fixed pie, so lets just say that today we have a pie with the size of 18T and next year we have a pie of 19.25 T. Let's just assume all the distributions are the same as our current shares (they will be more spread out, but that is a different issue) Can't you see that you get a bigger piece of pie, even if your percentage of the GDP stays the same?

How can allowing working men and women in WV to go back to work hurt the rest of us? Why should their lives be turned upside down? After the election DSL said something on the order of "the Dems should have had more plans for the coal miners that were put out of work". DSL and I both posted articles that had the thesis of a dignity gap, that working men wanted the dignity of a real 40-hour-a-week, Dad-bring-home-the-bacon job.

I'd honestly like to know why folks in what NR calls "the Great White Ghetto" should have their jobs eliminated by government decree. Can you answer me that? Would you feel differently if coal miners were preponderantly black or mostly illegals?

I'd also like to know your definition of middle-class. Not to argue, but just to see how we differ on that. Have you ever heard either party use the term "lower class" to describe the lowest 10%?

[froot loops]

That whole post ignores the fact that the economy absolutely cratered as President Obama took office during a financial panic. He had to take the painful steps to help it gain it's footing with lite to no help from the obstructionist, nihilistic GOP. They would have would have let the auto industry dissolve as long as it happened under President Obama. They made show votes in the middle of the panic. In fact wage growth is coming back, employment made huge gains under President Obama especially in 5he private sector.

As a side note Da Geezer keeps on talking about coal but also wants more fracking, it must be lost on him that the two industries are competing for the same market share.

[The Oracle]

When David Duke is tweeting his approval for Bannon, Flynn, Sessions, you know you're on the right track to greatness!!! Muuuuurica!!!

[froot loops]

Van Jones wasn't wrong on election night.

[The Oracle]

It's seriously fucked up shit.

[iam416]

RACISTS! No, RACISTS!!!!!! Wait a minute, RACISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

Ds need a new playbook. Well, maybe not. I'm assuming they're concerned with getting elected. If they're not, then by all means, RACISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MISOGYNISTS!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Oracle]

Si

[froot loops]

Yes sit by and hoping for the best while implementing Sessions and Bannon sounds like a sound strategy.

The GOP had a strategy of total obstruction, smearing the President with Birtherism and chanting Hang that Bitch and it worked wonderfully for then with no repercussions.

[iam416]

I remember that "Hang the Bitch" chant in Congress. And I think several dozen House Republicans had that on their campaign posters.

The Rs obstructed Obama policies and, well, the American people thanked them for it.

The Ds are doing what they always do...no matter the candidate...and screaming RACISM!!!! The American people shit on them once for that. So, I say keep it up.

They'll have plenty of chances to have substantive policy debates, and maybe they'll finally win some of those. However, when you don't want to deal with the issue you scream at the messenger and try to de-legitimize their position that way. And the voters are wise to it. You called GWB a racist. You called McCain a racist. You called Romney a racist. And now, when a true asshat is in office, you've blown your credibility because it's what you always do.

So, keep it up. It's going swimmingly fucking well. Pretty soon you won't control a state that doesn't border an ocean and, thanks to the Rs, those are going to be underwater in 4 years.

[AlabamAlum]

Sessions isn't the hood-wearing racist everyone thinks he is. He is very, very much anti illegal aliens, though.

Otherwise, fairly moderate. No joke.

[iam416]

"everyone" = lol

You mean those who lost the election.

[iam416]

As for illegal aliens, I've said it before -- if you think we ought to have immigration laws, then, IMO, it's entirely reasonable to enforce those laws. I don't consider that anything other than rational.

We can debate what sorts of immigration laws we ought to have -- that's a fair policy discussion. But the job of the Executive is to enforce the laws of the Legislative branch. I think that's mentioned somewhere in the Federalist papers.