Started By
Message
re: OT: Just a reminder to vote in the most important midterms since who knows when
Posted on 10/22/18 at 8:56 pm to S1C EM
Posted on 10/22/18 at 8:56 pm to S1C EM
quote:
Why the hell has John Barrow taken so long to move up the ranks? He was well into his political career when Brian Kemp was still building houses.
Although he presents himself as a good old boy, measured, even-keeled, likeable; he is a true absolute socialist. He believes that people are born with a destiny, and if you aren't born the correct demographic, you are doomed to suffer this crude life. He believes that people like himself only have their success because of their gender and skin color, so naturally he feels guilty about that. It's also an admission of his own racism. He wants to change that by taking away from the people he deems worthy of theft and give it to those he thinks deserve it. He is one-half old-school southern democrat and one-half socialist, which makes him 90% socialist.
He has only survived in politics this long because of Athens.
He would be running a title loan franchise if he had been gerrymandered out of Athens 20 years ago. He might even have killed himself by now, from all the white guilt harbored inside of his racist heart.
0
Posted on 10/22/18 at 9:07 pm to icheerforgeorgia
quote:
Thx for the reminder to vote for Abrams
I can’t affect an NPC with inability to have critical thought.
This post was edited on 10/22/18 at 9:09 pm
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:03 pm to FlexDawg
frick both of them I'm voting for Metz
Posted on 10/23/18 at 11:21 am to FlexDawg
quote:
There’s no denying the low rate of unemployment, job numbers and the rate of GDP growth.
I'm not intending to wade into the political debate because I don't trust either party to do the right thing at this point. But regarding your point about the economic data, those numbers represent a temporary reprieve, not an economic recovery. This economy is based on over consumption via unsustainable debt and, while Trump didn't cause that problem (neither did any other individual president), he's made no move to change course.
The only corrective action would have been to reduce consumption, reduce spending, encourage the federal reserve to move back toward a policy of sound money and let bad debt clear through default. Unfortunately, no president in modern history has had the gumption to pursue such a painful course, so now we're in the latter stages of a failing global monetary system where debt monetization by central banks is an acceptable "economic stimulus". When the outcome of this process becomes apparent to the general population, there won't be any quick fixes no matter who is president.
This post was edited on 10/23/18 at 11:30 am
Posted on 10/23/18 at 11:44 am to wdhalgren
quote:
This economy is based on over consumption via unsustainable debt and, while Trump didn't cause that problem (neither did any other individual president), he's made no move to change course.
Obama says hold my beer
Posted on 10/23/18 at 11:54 am to DawgCountry
Obama did exactly the same thing that every other president has done during economic downturns (or wars) since the Federal Reserve was created. He over spent and incurred as much debt as necessary to "fix" an economy that was failing because of too much debt and risky financial speculation (think of it as the "hair of the dog" method for fixing a financial hangover). He happened to be the guy who took office when the banking system was on the verge of collapse, so it took an insane level of deficit spending to stem the bleeding, but I'm doubtful that any other elected candidate would have done it much differently. In fact, I'm pretty sure that neither he nor any other president would have permission to do so, from the folks who are really calling the shots.
This post was edited on 10/23/18 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 10/23/18 at 12:31 pm to DawgCountry
quote:
Obama says hold my beer
Jesus christ you frickers are like a broken record on here... I'm not a huge fan of Obama by any means but objectively, this is just ridiculous.
quote:
With Obama, however, federal spending largely went nowhere between 2009 and 2016. Much of the growth over the Obama terms can be attributed to the large jump in federal spending that occurred in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. It should be noted, however, that our calculations here somewhat overstate Obama's spending and understate Bush's spending. That is, George W. Bush supported large amounts of federal "stimulus" — such as Bush's bailout of auto makers — which ended up in the 2009 budget. For the sake of simplicity, we'll attribute all of that stimulus spending to Obama since it shows up in the 2009 fiscal year — which began under Bush on October 1, 2008. Even when we do this, however, Obama's spending growth amounted to 15.8 percent, which places it fourth behind Reagan, Bush, and Ford.
Basically, as wdhalgren mentioned above... every president (at least in the modern era) seemingly spends more than the president before him...
Whoever inherited the office at the end of 2008 was essentially going to be laden with high amounts of spending in the first 2-3 years, and that is exactly what we see in the chart above.
All charts/quotes pulled from Mises Institute - a Right to Right Center leaning non-profit that generally analyzes economic trends
----- ----- ----- -----
For all the talk about fricking NPCs around here, I honestly can't tell the red from the blue NPCs at this point. I ask a legitimate question... "Why Kemp?" and other than "It's not Abrams" can't get a real answer.
Don't tell me why you don't like the other side, tell me what about the position of the person you're voting for you agree with. It doesn't have to be perfect and I don't even have to agree with you, I just legitimately am making up my own mind, and "not X" arguments don't sway my opinion other than make me feel like you can't think for yourself.
Kemp went on record as saying he would vote for the "Religious Freedom" bill that has been veto'd before, and objectively would cost this state about 10 billion in total economic impact from the film industry alone... let alone tech firms, etc. As a fiscally conservative individual, I find it difficult to wrestle with this idea - regardless of my thoughts on the bill and its impact on minority individuals. Film business has been great for this state in general. It would seem best for us to try and promote this more, not thumb our noses at them as they take their pocketbooks elsewhere. I've since seen claims that he changed his stance, but that only makes me feel *less* confident that he has any clue how to manage the situation. He seems like a buffoon, so while I'm not an Abrams fan, she seems the lesser of two evils just based on pure policy stance. Tell me why this is incorrect?
This post was edited on 10/23/18 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 10/23/18 at 4:10 pm to FlexDawg
Does it matter if I'm voting Dem across the board? Or should I just stay home and make Georgia sh++ty again? Just wondering ; )
Posted on 10/23/18 at 4:35 pm to wdhalgren
Business investment depends upon expectations. During the Obama years, businesses, other than subsidized crony capitalists, were constantly pummeled by new regulations. As a result, businesses used every device available to preserve themselves, including locating their factories abroad, and avoided new investments in the United States.
Trump actually moved on his promises and reduced harmful business regulation and took actions to reduce the trade deficits. Business responded to a new set of expectations that were favorable to business. The stock markets boomed in anticipation.
Moreover, business fixed investment is the key to economic growth. It not only creates demand, but also gives workers new factories, increasing their productivity and wages.
The increased business confidence in the United States is the result of actions taken by the president during the months since he took office. These include:
1. The appointment of Neil Gorsuch, a judge considered to be dedicated to a strict construction of the Constitution, and the probability of appointments of more strict constructionists to come as a result of the prospective retirement of some leftist judges.
2.Ending foolish environmental regulations that cause job losses like the EPA's war on coal and hostility to fossil fuels.
3.Ending the undesirable business regulations that inhibit investment and risk-taking in the U.S. and encourage the movement of factories abroad.
4.Reversing Obama's refusal to approve the Keystone pipeline.
5.Rejecting U.S. participation in the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that would have shipped hundreds of thousands of American jobs abroad.
6.Beginning the renegotiation of NAFTA, a trade treaty that has been shipping American jobs to Mexico.
7. Rejecting U.S. participation in the Paris environmental accord, which would have raised energy prices and cost taxpayers billions in foreign payments.
8.Rebuilding our military power, thus promoting world stability.
9.Limiting the immigration of Islamic terrorists like those who bombed the Boston Marathon.
10.Placing a hiring freeze on federal employment, which gives confidence that the budget will eventually be balanced.
11.Signing fifteen laws that eliminated regulations promulgated by President Obama.
12.Signing two laws promoting entrepreneurship by women.
Will the economic boom continue? Unfortunately, Congress failed to repeal the growth-killing regulations of Obamacare. Fortunately, Trump has ways to further increase economic growth without congressional help. For example, he can negotiate better trade agreements and impose trade-balancing tariffs.
Our current trade agreements encourage U.S. companies to locate factories in low-wage countries, secure in the knowledge that the trade agreements guarantee that their products can enter the U.S. duty-free. Manufacturers are reluctant to build factories in the United States in the face of such artificial competition.
If Trump continues to move America's huge trade deficits toward balance, he will increase investment opportunities for manufacturing within the United States and will increase GDP by increasing net exports.The results in higher and higher incomes for American businesses and American workers.
Trump actually moved on his promises and reduced harmful business regulation and took actions to reduce the trade deficits. Business responded to a new set of expectations that were favorable to business. The stock markets boomed in anticipation.
Moreover, business fixed investment is the key to economic growth. It not only creates demand, but also gives workers new factories, increasing their productivity and wages.
The increased business confidence in the United States is the result of actions taken by the president during the months since he took office. These include:
1. The appointment of Neil Gorsuch, a judge considered to be dedicated to a strict construction of the Constitution, and the probability of appointments of more strict constructionists to come as a result of the prospective retirement of some leftist judges.
2.Ending foolish environmental regulations that cause job losses like the EPA's war on coal and hostility to fossil fuels.
3.Ending the undesirable business regulations that inhibit investment and risk-taking in the U.S. and encourage the movement of factories abroad.
4.Reversing Obama's refusal to approve the Keystone pipeline.
5.Rejecting U.S. participation in the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that would have shipped hundreds of thousands of American jobs abroad.
6.Beginning the renegotiation of NAFTA, a trade treaty that has been shipping American jobs to Mexico.
7. Rejecting U.S. participation in the Paris environmental accord, which would have raised energy prices and cost taxpayers billions in foreign payments.
8.Rebuilding our military power, thus promoting world stability.
9.Limiting the immigration of Islamic terrorists like those who bombed the Boston Marathon.
10.Placing a hiring freeze on federal employment, which gives confidence that the budget will eventually be balanced.
11.Signing fifteen laws that eliminated regulations promulgated by President Obama.
12.Signing two laws promoting entrepreneurship by women.
Will the economic boom continue? Unfortunately, Congress failed to repeal the growth-killing regulations of Obamacare. Fortunately, Trump has ways to further increase economic growth without congressional help. For example, he can negotiate better trade agreements and impose trade-balancing tariffs.
Our current trade agreements encourage U.S. companies to locate factories in low-wage countries, secure in the knowledge that the trade agreements guarantee that their products can enter the U.S. duty-free. Manufacturers are reluctant to build factories in the United States in the face of such artificial competition.
If Trump continues to move America's huge trade deficits toward balance, he will increase investment opportunities for manufacturing within the United States and will increase GDP by increasing net exports.The results in higher and higher incomes for American businesses and American workers.
Posted on 10/23/18 at 4:50 pm to FlexDawg
Boy she really fricked up. Kinda funny though how hypocritical it is that she’s burning a flag flown by the confederacy which were members of the same party she chose to join. Dems shouldn’t be angry that Republicans don’t want to erase their history. We are so tolerant that we want people to remember history but I guess that’s too much to ask.
Jobs not Mobs!
This post was edited on 10/23/18 at 5:20 pm
Posted on 10/23/18 at 5:06 pm to FlexDawg
The jobs issue isn't a political one. The "enemy" is automation, not regulation.
Posted on 10/23/18 at 5:22 pm to icheerforgeorgia
It actually is because unemployment is now lower than it’s been since 1969.
It’s more of a Trump factor than anything.
Trump is the President and he is considered a republican.
He needs more republicans in Congress to help implement the rest of his agenda.
So it’s a political issue.
It’s more of a Trump factor than anything.
Trump is the President and he is considered a republican.
He needs more republicans in Congress to help implement the rest of his agenda.
So it’s a political issue.
This post was edited on 10/23/18 at 5:40 pm
Posted on 10/23/18 at 5:59 pm to FlexDawg
quote:
Business investment depends upon expectations.
Cool... so what were the expectations in 2009 when Obama took office in the wake of 2008 collapse? Pretty sure they weren't very good, right?
When he took office, the market was in free fall... hitting bottom roughly a month or so after he finally took office (mid march 7200ish). From there, during his presidency, the market not only rebounded but hit record highs (up to that point) in the 18,000s.
Some may try and argue that the market was moving up in anticipation of Trump prior to election day, but that would then be countered by Trump's own claims that no one gave him a chance to win.... which isn't exactly inaccurate. None of the models seemed to credibly predict that he'd win, so that would imply that up until that point, the market was moving on Obama and or the expectation that Hillary might be taking office after him. This is quite frankly pretty surprising to even consider.
It's lopsided, myopic posts like this that make me have to provide a counterpoint that bolsters Obama's case. I'm all for calling out his inefficiencies and missteps, but to pretend like you didn't see massive stock market gains throughout his entire presidency is simply ridiculous. I've seen this same list tossed out by friends who are devout Trump supporters recently, so good to see the NPC script is alive and kicking on both sides. For nearly every one of the points below that you tout as a remarkable achievement, there is a drawback, negative that is essentially glossed over or completely ignored here.
quote:
reduced harmful business regulation
Can you define "harmful business regulation" as you understand it? My understanding is we did remove regulations, I have not seen an adequate explanation for what was "harmful", but it did seem quite clear that some of the protectionary measures that arose from the 2008 debacle were removed. I can't speak to whether they were beneficial, harmful, or both, but it does seem at least on the surface to be concerning.
quote:
and took actions to reduce the trade deficits
Really? This chart would seemingly disagree with that hypothesis? If anything, it appears that Obama did some work to reduce the deficit, it reached a new "normal range" and that upon taking office, Trump may have actually pushed it *slightly* the wrong direction... bigger swings, but the "normal range hasn't changed for the positive?
quote:
Moreover, business fixed investment is the key to economic growth. It not only creates demand, but also gives workers new factories, increasing their productivity and wages.
This would explain why we are seeing sustained, pronounced wage and jobs growth in this country right now, right? I haven't seen any factual indication of this, but would love to?
quote:
1. The appointment of Neil Gorsuch, a judge considered to be dedicated to a strict construction of the Constitution, and the probability of appointments of more strict constructionists to come as a result of the prospective retirement of some leftist judges.
Have no problem with Gorsuch. Also had no problem with Obama's appointee, Merrick Garland? He's hardly a "leftist judge".
quote:
2.Ending foolish environmental regulations that cause job losses like the EPA's war on coal and hostility to fossil fuels.
Yeah, because frick this country and our kids, or our kids kids. Environmental regulations aren't foolish inherently. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be evaluated on their merits, but the current administration doesn't seem to care about it at all. That's back to that whole myopic view that I mentioned earlier. I'm a scientist. I tend to believe science before I believe a real estate tycoon who claims to "have a natural feel" for science and refuses to employ actually knowledgeable individuals in this particular field/area to advise him.
quote:
3.Ending the undesirable business regulations that inhibit investment and risk-taking in the U.S. and encourage the movement of factories abroad.
Aren't we still seeing US companies move factories abroad? Where are the wins here? I'm not saying they don't exist, but all of the early touted wins seemingly have ended up with those facilities still moving out of the country haven't they? It really is hard to keep up with the constant news cycle. Don't have enough time to fact check everything.
quote:
4.Reversing Obama's refusal to approve the Keystone pipeline.
"Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota"
Why is this a win?
quote:
5.Rejecting U.S. participation in the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that would have shipped hundreds of thousands of American jobs abroad.
I legitimately don't know what Obama or Clinton's stance on this would have been, nor do I know whether it would have been beneficial or not. It didn't seem so on the surface, but rarely are these things surface level issues.
quote:
6.Beginning the renegotiation of NAFTA, a trade treaty that has been shipping American jobs to Mexico.
Is there a simple breakdown on why NAFTA is believed to be a net loser for the US? Again, not disagreeing, but also won't claim to be an expert on this one.
quote:
7. Rejecting U.S. participation in the Paris environmental accord, which would have raised energy prices and cost taxpayers billions in foreign payments.
The Paris Agreement was hardly a perfect option, but it was a step in the right direction to not shitting on this planet and passing the buck. Instead, we just cost the taxpayers billions in corporate subsidies that instead of funding wage increases or job growth went to funding stock buybacks, right?
quote:
8.Rebuilding our military power, thus promoting world stability.
What exactly needed rebuilding? There was no significant shortage of budgeting to Defense spending according to the figures here?
(The bit in that article about how Congress makes it difficult for the DoD to cut spending was interesting - not partisan, just more classic political BS.)
quote:
9.Limiting the immigration of Islamic terrorists like those who bombed the Boston Marathon.
quote:
10.Placing a hiring freeze on federal employment, which gives confidence that the budget will eventually be balanced.
There's more to it than the surface. The GAO already conducted a study on the subject previously... LINK
In addition to having “little effect on Federal employment levels,” the GAO said, those freezes “disrupted agency operations, and in some cases, increased costs to the Government.”
quote:
11.Signing fifteen laws that eliminated regulations promulgated by President Obama.
Eliminating regulation =/= progress. Some regulations are good. Some of them are bad. What were they, why were they eliminated, who/what did they benefit?
quote:
12.Signing two laws promoting entrepreneurship by women.
Also rolled back Obama era Women's Pay initiatives and protective initiatives for women with government contractors. Would be difficult to see the Trump Administration as overwhelmingly beneficial for women by any objective measure.
Posted on 10/23/18 at 6:01 pm to fibonaccisquared
TL;DR
There are far too many flaws with what you've presented to sit and go through all of them point by point.
As I've said before, Obama was hardly some bastion of greatness to which all future presidents should seek to emulate, but to wit (and certainly not as presented in your post) it's a higher bar than what the Trump administration has managed thus far. Perhaps it's unfair to give him credit for the economic rebound post 2008, and that it would have "self corrected" under any president, but that is speculation at best and the simple fact is he was in office, and not only did it rebound, but it did so robustly.
I'm still waiting for a reasonable take on why Kemp is someone I should vote for. As far as I can tell, the current iteration of the Republican party is so far from what I grew up with and have voted for in the past, that the lesser of two evils is a full "non-incumbent party" ticket... but that doesn't accomplish much either... One shite sandwich for another.
There are far too many flaws with what you've presented to sit and go through all of them point by point.
As I've said before, Obama was hardly some bastion of greatness to which all future presidents should seek to emulate, but to wit (and certainly not as presented in your post) it's a higher bar than what the Trump administration has managed thus far. Perhaps it's unfair to give him credit for the economic rebound post 2008, and that it would have "self corrected" under any president, but that is speculation at best and the simple fact is he was in office, and not only did it rebound, but it did so robustly.
I'm still waiting for a reasonable take on why Kemp is someone I should vote for. As far as I can tell, the current iteration of the Republican party is so far from what I grew up with and have voted for in the past, that the lesser of two evils is a full "non-incumbent party" ticket... but that doesn't accomplish much either... One shite sandwich for another.
Posted on 10/23/18 at 6:10 pm to FlexDawg
quote:
Jobs not Mobs!
Interesting...
Which presidents created the most jobs...
Top of the list? 2 Democrats. Job creation/Unemployment rates are not inherently partisan...
Posted on 10/23/18 at 6:54 pm to FlexDawg
Posted on 10/23/18 at 7:01 pm to fibonaccisquared
You make some good points. I particularly like the one about subsidizing corporate stock buybacks, but that goes way beyond just the Paris accord deal. Corporations have been on a buyback frenzy for quite a while now and the Federal Reserve has been their main benefactor. Lots of public companies have been able to borrow at or below the rate of inflation for almost a decade, and they've used a lot of that new debt for buybacks, giving insiders massive windfall profits on their options in the process. The result is a less flexible capital structure and weaker balance sheets that will be trouble in the next downturn. Basically, savers have been the ones who were forced to subsidize the buybacks by receiving an artificially low return on their savings.
As for trade deficits, you're right they've been at an ugly level for a long time. If you look at a longer term chart than the one above, you'll see the growing chronic trade deficits basically shifted into high gear at about the time Nixon abandoned Bretton Woods and effectively ended the gold peg in 1971, thus freeing the banking system to create new money without immediate repercussion. In fact, creating new money is practically the only way that a single country could run a large sustained trade deficit as the US has done since then. Under a system of sound money, if you perennially send more money abroad for trade than you receive back in trade, eventually you'll run out of money or at least chew into whatever national savings were available to begin with. The US has abused the dollar's status as a defacto global reserve currency (even post Bretton Woods) to achieve this by exporting new money/debt to finance our trade and budget deficits. Eventually that will end and not in a good way.
Like I said, I don't have a favorite dog in this fight because I don't think Trump or Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan/Bush, etc, can take any credit for real economic recovery. All of those presidents and congresses were able to borrow/spend freely when they saw fit, simply because the fed and our banking system kept lowering interest rates to keep expanding the money supply at a high exponential rate. This last time they took real (inflation adjusted) interest rates to zero or even negative and kept them there for a long time via massive public and private debt purchases. Next time will require an even bigger intervention. Despite the still prevalent Keynesian orthodoxy, debasing the money supply won't actually repair a debt ridden economy and will sooner or later destroy it. All of the social issues that drive our political debates pale in significance to that fact and serve to distract us from the biggest looming problem.
As for trade deficits, you're right they've been at an ugly level for a long time. If you look at a longer term chart than the one above, you'll see the growing chronic trade deficits basically shifted into high gear at about the time Nixon abandoned Bretton Woods and effectively ended the gold peg in 1971, thus freeing the banking system to create new money without immediate repercussion. In fact, creating new money is practically the only way that a single country could run a large sustained trade deficit as the US has done since then. Under a system of sound money, if you perennially send more money abroad for trade than you receive back in trade, eventually you'll run out of money or at least chew into whatever national savings were available to begin with. The US has abused the dollar's status as a defacto global reserve currency (even post Bretton Woods) to achieve this by exporting new money/debt to finance our trade and budget deficits. Eventually that will end and not in a good way.
Like I said, I don't have a favorite dog in this fight because I don't think Trump or Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan/Bush, etc, can take any credit for real economic recovery. All of those presidents and congresses were able to borrow/spend freely when they saw fit, simply because the fed and our banking system kept lowering interest rates to keep expanding the money supply at a high exponential rate. This last time they took real (inflation adjusted) interest rates to zero or even negative and kept them there for a long time via massive public and private debt purchases. Next time will require an even bigger intervention. Despite the still prevalent Keynesian orthodoxy, debasing the money supply won't actually repair a debt ridden economy and will sooner or later destroy it. All of the social issues that drive our political debates pale in significance to that fact and serve to distract us from the biggest looming problem.
This post was edited on 10/23/18 at 7:30 pm
Posted on 10/23/18 at 9:23 pm to Dawgirl
quote:
I have a choice of a socialist for a Gov or Desantis and an old fart of a Senator or Rick Scott. I'll be stopping off to early vote this Friday after work.
Same here.
Posted on 10/23/18 at 10:22 pm to FooManChoo
Even more amazingly, Republicans (perhaps a new party name is needed soon?) have stopped caring about the federal deficit, the rule of law, and several other concepts that were so near-and-dear to the GOP for decades until they were forced to capitulate to - of all people - a demagogue born and raised in New York City. The irony... lol
I think Trump's right...ought to change the name to the Nationalist Party! I think it's got a nice ring to it.
I think Trump's right...ought to change the name to the Nationalist Party! I think it's got a nice ring to it.
Posted on 10/23/18 at 11:04 pm to Lucius Clay
quote:
Republicans (perhaps a new party name is needed soon?) have stopped caring about the federal deficit,
Wrong
quote:
the rule of law,
Republicans are the only ones who still know what this actually means, actually. So you are wrong again.
quote:
and several other concepts that were so near-and-dear to the GOP for decades
Aww.. vague peacock language ... bless your heart.
quote:
a demagogue born and raised in New York City. The irony... lol
Wow, this is ironic.
quote:
I think Trump's right...ought to change the name to the Nationalist Party! I think it's got a nice ring to it.
So hating your country is cool, got it. Dog whistles for racism!
Page 2 of 5
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News