Page 54 of 141 FirstFirst ... 4 44 52 53 54 55 56 64 104 ... LastLast
Results 1,591 to 1,620 of 4230

Thread: Trump 2017: Year Zero

  1. #1591
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,095
    Mentioned
    717 Post(s)
    For Trump, who wants to "bring back jobs," it absolutely could be a way to increase jobs where he take total credit for it. It's not a GOOD method, because of the cost, obviously (financial and human). But, he doesn't care; he's kowtowing to the Republicans and his base.

    It's a pretty common capitalist economic belief that war "creates jobs." As does increased defense. As @Dra508 said, from a government spending and job-creation standpoint, defense is no different than infrastructure.

    Anyway, increasing defense spending isn't just a Trump goal, it's been a HUGE Republican goal for, shit, ever. And ever since it was disclosed that Russia's nuclear stockpile is way bigger than ours, military people have been pissed off; we had an agreement to stop the nuclear arms race, but Russia has thrown that out the window.
    Last edited by allegro; 02-27-2017 at 07:42 PM.

  2. #1592
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,095
    Mentioned
    717 Post(s)
    Also, it's a really common notion, especially among the older generations that survived World Wars etc., that "this country needs a war to help the economy." And to bolster patriotism.

    See this: "America needs a new war or capitalism dies"

    See also Post-World War II Economic Expansion.

    See also:

    For the United States, World War II and the Great Depression constituted the most important economic event of the twentieth century. The war’s effects were varied and far-reaching. The war decisively ended the depression itself. The federal government emerged from the war as a potent economic actor, able to regulate economic activity and to partially control the economy through spending and consumption. American industry was revitalized by the war, and many sectors were by 1945 either sharply oriented to defense production (for example, aerospace and electronics) or completely dependent on it (atomic energy). The organized labor movement, strengthened by the war beyond even its depression-era height, became a major counterbalance to both the government and private industry. The war’s rapid scientific and technological changes continued and intensified trends begun during the Great Depression and created a permanent expectation of continued innovation on the part of many scientists, engineers, government officials and citizens. Similarly, the substantial increases in personal income and frequently, if not always, in quality of life during the war led many Americans to foresee permanent improvements to their material circumstances, even as others feared a postwar return of the depression. Finally, the war’s global scale severely damaged every major economy in the world except for the United States, which thus enjoyed unprecedented economic and political power after 1945.
    War Bonds

    All told, taxes provided about $136.8 billion of the war’s total cost of $304 billion (Kennedy, 625). To cover the other $167.2 billion, the Treasury Department also expanded its bond program, creating the famous “war bonds” hawked by celebrities and purchased in vast numbers and enormous values by Americans. The first war bond was purchased by President Roosevelt on May 1, 1941 (“Introduction to Savings Bonds”). Though the bonds returned only 2.9 percent annual interest after a 10-year maturity, they nonetheless served as a valuable source of revenue for the federal government and an extremely important investment for many Americans. Bonds served as a way for citizens to make an economic contribution to the war effort, but because interest on them accumulated slower than consumer prices rose, they could not completely preserve income which could not be readily spent during the war. By the time war-bond sales ended in 1946, 85 million Americans had purchased more than $185 billion worth of the securities, often through automatic deductions from their paychecks (“Brief History of World War Two Advertising Campaigns: War Loans and Bonds”). Commercial institutions like banks also bought billions of dollars of bonds and other treasury paper, holding more than $24 billion at the war’s end (Kennedy, 626).

  3. #1593
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    san fransisco
    Posts
    823
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    better explained the broken window: http://economics.about.com/od/output...w-Fallacy.html
    -Louie

  4. #1594
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,095
    Mentioned
    717 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Louie_Cypher View Post
    better explained the broken window: http://economics.about.com/od/output...w-Fallacy.html
    -Louie
    Your link is broken, see this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Para..._broken_window

    But it has criticisms:

    The interpretations assume that the "window" has positive value and that replacing it is not a good investment. In the broader scope, offsetting factors can reduce or even negate the cost of destruction. For example, new technologies developed during a war and forced modernization during postwar reconstruction can cause old technologies to become valueless. Also, if two shopkeepers keep their "window" beyond the point where it would maximize their profit, the shopkeeper whose window is broken is forced to make a good investment increasing his comparative profit, or rather, reducing his comparative loss. Regardless, while wanton destruction of real value may not be a net loss, it is of course still a misfortune, not a blessing. Others argue that the broken window may not result in reduction of spending by the victim, but rather, a reduction in excessive savings. "The logic of limited resources only applies when the economy is using most of those limited resources. If there are slack resources, we need merely mobilize some of the slack resources."[who said this?] The reductio ad absurdum of breaking 100 windows, then, applies only when underutilised resources have been used, and the tailor is forced to divert resources from more productive means.

    It has been argued that the parable, while intuitive, may not correspond to actual evidence. For instance, some economists argue that natural disasters can often result in improved growth in both the short and long term.

  5. #1595
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    san fransisco
    Posts
    823
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    I guess I would rather see things like education and health care things other than killing people who pray to a different god than I do
    -Louie

  6. #1596
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Concrete Prairie, Texas
    Posts
    2,807
    Mentioned
    74 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    For Trump, who wants to "bring back jobs," it absolutely could be a way to increase jobs where he take total credit for it. It's not a GOOD method, because of the cost, obviously (financial and human). But, he doesn't care; he's kowtowing to the Republicans and his base.

    It's a pretty common capitalist economic belief that war "creates jobs." As does increased defense. As @Dra508 said, from a government spending and job-creation standpoint, defense is no different than infrastructure.

    Anyway, increasing defense spending isn't just a Trump goal, it's been a HUGE Republican goal for, shit, ever. And ever since it was disclosed that Russia's nuclear stockpile is way bigger than ours, military people have been pissed off; we had an agreement to stop the nuclear arms race, but Russia has thrown that out the window.
    What she said.

  7. #1597
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,095
    Mentioned
    717 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Louie_Cypher View Post
    I guess I would rather see things like education and health care things other than killing people who pray to a different god than I do
    -Louie
    I think the increase in defense spending is just that: DEFENSE spending. Not OFFENSE spending. We are not currently in an actual "war" anywhere, nor is it likely based on current circumstances or events. But Republicans believe in a large standing armed forces and stockpiled equipment for preparedness and a show of strength. The Dems believe in spending only as needed. It's a philosophical difference not solely based on hawkish or imperialist idiology. It's a reaction to various recent events, including North Korea launching test missiles, Russia threatening nearby regions, China flexing its military muscles, and Iran pushing the nuclear envelope, etc.

    McCain and the Republican military gang are currently bitching that Trump didn't raise the defense budget ENOUGH.

    We all pray to the same God. God's name is just different. But the idea that this country is out to kill a bunch of Muslims just for being Muslim is erroneous.
    Last edited by allegro; 02-28-2017 at 07:57 AM.

  8. #1598
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    542
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    For Trump, who wants to "bring back jobs," it absolutely could be a way to increase jobs where he take total credit for it. It's not a GOOD method, because of the cost, obviously (financial and human). But, he doesn't care; he's kowtowing to the Republicans and his base.

    It's a pretty common capitalist economic belief that war "creates jobs." As does increased defense. As @Dra508 said, from a government spending and job-creation standpoint, defense is no different than infrastructure.

    Anyway, increasing defense spending isn't just a Trump goal, it's been a HUGE Republican goal for, shit, ever. And ever since it was disclosed that Russia's nuclear stockpile is way bigger than ours, military people have been pissed off; we had an agreement to stop the nuclear arms race, but Russia has thrown that out the window.
    Does it really matter who has the bigger stockpile other than a numbers game? It's men and penises but on a 'I'm going to blow up the whole world" kind of way.

  9. #1599
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,196
    Mentioned
    329 Post(s)
    and instead of pursuing a rollback in our outrageous collection of nuclear arms, Trump is promising to make America the most nuclear-having country in the world again.

    FFS, I think we're going to look back at these insane meandering speeches, where he says things like "why shouldn't be on good terms with Russia?" and "The Russia thing is ridiculous" and saying oh, how we would be getting along so well with Russia if the media would just let him... We have over 4,000 nukes. We used to have over 30,000. 4000 is still enough to wipe out all life on this planet pretty much, though, so why the hell would we want or need more?!

  10. #1600
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    2,453
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    We have over 4,000 nukes. We used to have over 30,000. 4000 is still enough to wipe out all life on this planet pretty much, though, so why the hell would we want or need more?!
    Not according to this guy...


  11. #1601
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    san fransisco
    Posts
    823
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    war has no long term roi's it's not sustainable
    -louie

  12. #1602
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,095
    Mentioned
    717 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    and instead of pursuing a rollback in our outrageous collection of nuclear arms, Trump is promising to make America the most nuclear-having country in the world again.

    FFS, I think we're going to look back at these insane meandering speeches, where he says things like "why shouldn't be on good terms with Russia?" and "The Russia thing is ridiculous" and saying oh, how we would be getting along so well with Russia if the media would just let him... We have over 4,000 nukes. We used to have over 30,000. 4000 is still enough to wipe out all life on this planet pretty much, though, so why the hell would we want or need more?!
    The huge budget increase for modernization and increasing of nuclear weapons started during the Obama administration. It went largely unnoticed. I've linked articles in here already. Just an FYI.

  13. #1603
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,196
    Mentioned
    329 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    The huge budget increase for modernization and increasing of nuclear weapons started during the Obama administration. It went largely unnoticed. I've linked articles in here already. Just an FYI.
    I just don't understand the rationale behind getting more nukes. If we were ever to arrive at the horrifying juncture in history where we would have expended a nuclear arsenal that size, I don't think anyone who survived would want to live on this planet anymore.

    Regarding Obama and the previous administration's approach to nuclear weapons, I honestly don't know concretely how that went. I read some articles saying he was ramping up the arsenal, and others saying he was dialing it back. I would look into it again for clarification, but it doesn't change how I feel about it, and at this point I guess it doesn't matter. We're where we're at now.
    Last edited by Jinsai; 02-28-2017 at 12:59 PM.

  14. #1604
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,095
    Mentioned
    717 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    I just don't understand the rationale behind getting more nukes. If we were ever to arrive at the horrifying juncture in history where we would have expended a nuclear arsenal that size, I don't think anyone who survived would want to live on this planet anymore.

    Regarding Obama and the previous administration's approach to nuclear weapons, I honestly don't know concretely how that went. I read some articles saying he was ramping up the arsenal, and others saying he was dialing it back. I would look into it again for clarification, but it doesn't change how I feel about it, and at this point I guess it doesn't matter. We're where we're at now.
    Here is a good article.

    Here is the current status.
    Last edited by allegro; 02-28-2017 at 04:50 PM.

  15. #1605
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,196
    Mentioned
    329 Post(s)
    this is a surprisingly interesting thing I stumbled on
    the intro is kind of rambling, but the follow up videos are interesting


  16. #1606
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    san fransisco
    Posts
    823
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    someone last night call trump a "cheeto", good name,
    -louie

  17. #1607
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    London
    Posts
    478
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    I honestly dont think Palestine will survive a few more decades if not this administration...it will be gone soon....

    At least then the Israel/Palestine conflict will be over??????

    In the Western world its all about nationalism.. protecting democracy...from invaders...the right wing of Israel is seen favourably..as from the islamic barbarians....
    Radical right wing groups protecting European soveignity will continue to emerge...
    As what was inevitable after the myopic decision Angela Merkel took.
    Last edited by Exocet; 03-01-2017 at 08:54 PM.

  18. #1608
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,196
    Mentioned
    329 Post(s)

  19. #1609
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    1,904
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    I can tell this whole mess is going to go in history books, I know there are people here who know more than me so far as the history of elections/presidency/administrations, has anything this big (even if his ties end up being nothing and this whole Russian thing is a non-issue from here forward) ever happened? This just seems so huge and unreal to me, having only been old enough to remember from Clinton forward.

  20. #1610
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,196
    Mentioned
    329 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sick among the pure View Post
    I can tell this whole mess is going to go in history books, I know there are people here who know more than me so far as the history of elections/presidency/administrations, has anything this big (even if his ties end up being nothing and this whole Russian thing is a non-issue from here forward) ever happened? This just seems so huge and unreal to me, having only been old enough to remember from Clinton forward.
    I guess it depends on who you ask... for people who believe "9/11 was an inside job," their claims are definitely more serious (and also generally nonsense).

    But yeah, this is really crazy.

  21. #1611
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    san fransisco
    Posts
    823
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    I smell obstruction of justice, or Nixon called and want's his job back
    -Louie

  22. #1612
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    2,105
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    I guess it depends on who you ask... for people who believe "9/11 was an inside job," their claims are definitely more serious (and also generally nonsense).

    But yeah, this is really crazy.
    But 9/11 WAS an inside job. Trump did it.

    (/sarcasm)

    I do think this will be studied in history books in the future. We elected a reality TV star with no political experience to one of the most powerful offices in the world, and there's evidence that it's partly due to Russian influence. How would that NOT make it into textbooks?

  23. #1613
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,196
    Mentioned
    329 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by theimage13 View Post
    I do think this will be studied in history books in the future. We elected a reality TV star with no political experience to one of the most powerful offices in the world, and there's evidence that it's partly due to Russian influence. How would that NOT make it into textbooks?
    Of course it will make history books... it'll be the first time a tweet makes history... "All negative polls are fake news" will make the history books.

  24. #1614
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    2,453
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    What a mess ... The worst part is nothing will happen. I don't think anyone else is getting fired. Especially not Sessions. He's a pillar of Trump's administration.

  25. #1615
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Monaco
    Posts
    322
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    The whole political system of the USA became less than a farce in a few weeks. It is beyond embarrasing and not excusable anymore. As if open conspiracies are any better than hidden ones.
    Its like watching a dynamic which can't be stopped by humans. maybe an emergent phenomena of post-capitalist societies. full factorization into very confined echochambers/noospheric landscapes.
    Last edited by baudolino; 03-02-2017 at 09:22 AM.

  26. #1616
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    san fransisco
    Posts
    823
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Deepvoid View Post
    What a mess ... The worst part is nothing will happen. I don't think anyone else is getting fired. Especially not Sessions. He's a pillar of Trump's administration.
    I think some of the worst victims are ms victims of con and fraud, because the have to admit they were dumb enough to fall for it, will americans be willing to admit they were so thoroughly duped
    -Louie

  27. #1617
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    3,117
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Is Trumpism the new punk rock?
    http://theweek.com/articles/682416/t...-new-punk-rock

    What?

  28. #1618
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,057
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)

  29. #1619
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,196
    Mentioned
    329 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Deepvoid View Post
    What a mess ... The worst part is nothing will happen. I don't think anyone else is getting fired. Especially not Sessions. He's a pillar of Trump's administration.
    Well, today he recused himself of the Russia inquiry, so that's something at least. He should absolutely be removed rom office, but this is his appeal to side-step being forced to resign.

    Roger Stone, one of the others on Trump's team accused of improper meetings with Russian officials, said on February 15th that “The president should tell his attorney general that either he finds proof of this, or he puts it to bed and announces none of it happened.”

    We'll never get to the bottom of this, naturally, but connecting the dots there is making me feel like a conspiracy theorist.

  30. #1620
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,868
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Hey guys remember how supposedly having a private email server for government work was worthy of imprisonment?

    Yeah so are we gonna all wear Pence for Prison shirts now or ... ?

    http://hill.cm/5WBlqsM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions