Increased U.S. growth and stock market gains coming. The reason? Trumponomics.

[Skroe]

- - - Updated - - -

Well if its any consolation, facism is just a fucking loser ideology. Communism lasted longer. Best case end scenario for fascism is dead in a ditch on fire.

Indeed.

I was thinking about something earlier today. I'm 33. 9/11 happened when I was 18. I knew somebody who died on the first Airplane (close friend of the family).This country, riteosly, wanted to go destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But it wasn't a foam at the mouth, irrational anger. The policy had excesses of course (GITMO, John Walker Lindh) but the public discourse was largely quietly focused on achieving justice for the actual murder of 3000 Americans (and keep in mind, at the time, the number being throw around was 5000+... the final number was arrived at much later once duplicates were removed).

The way I see many Trumpkin people in their mid to early twenties and teens, talk about ISIS is mindboggling. It's full of this absolute rage at their fundamental existence. These people would do anything, spend anything, to wipe out every single ISIS foot soldier off the face of the earth. And let's couple that with the anti-immigrant (mostly anti-Muslim) hysteria. It's a very visceral kind of hate. The problem is, of course, unlike 9/11, which was an actual event perpetrated by entirely different people (and didn't lead to this amount of rage), these angry people have the occasional beheading viral video, or things they read in the news about refugees as their "trigger". And even then the response so hysterically outstrips what is remotely rational.

It's bizarre beyond belief to me. ISIS has not perpetrated a major attack on the US. And even their largest attack in the entire Western world was done by sympathizers, in another country, and was less than a tenth the size of 9/11. And here we are, some quarters wanting our third trillion dollar muslim-world war in twenty years? Are they insane or stupid? Like it would be one thing if ISIS caused a major attack that killed large numbers of Americans, or had anything close to the capability of doing that. But that hasn't happen and won't happen.

Furthermore, tied up in this is the delusion among Trump supporters regarding Syrian/Muslim world refugees - by far a predominantly European issue that America is entirely isolated over thanks to, you know, the Atlantic Ocean. But somehow, someway, the morons have convinced themselves that the human migration "problems" face by sections of Europe are also being faced by the United States, when as a matter of fact, they simply don't.

ISIS rightfully, is a security matter to keep an eye on, but the Trumpkin's desire to go assault them is the most artificial march to war I can imagine. It's not just some kind of top-down driven bullshit. It's grassroots Trumpkin bullshit meeting alt-right top-down driven bullshit and crushing common sense between it.

The logical holes are just so galling. You cannot have a more restrained foreign policy, and go fight ISIS. Fighting ISIS is by definition, NOT having a restrained foreign policy. Furthermore you cannot balance this country's books or invest in infrastructure, by dropping a trillion dollars on a war, paid for via a credit car. From every conceivable angle, there is no rationality to any of it.

I generally regard the Trumpkins as small men. I don't respect them. I think they have no point, no philosophy, are deeply cynical and contradictory and generally un-American. But in going to "kick ass in Syria" or something, I see small men trying to act like their tough, big men. It's rather sad.

[Wells]

But it wasn't a foam at the mouth, irrational anger. The policy had excesses of course (GITMO, John Walker Lindh) but the public discourse was largely quietly focused on achieving justice for the actual murder

Be careful who you say this to. You might know someone lost on the planes, but I know more than a couple muslims who can probably laugh at this at this point.

While I don't have much disagreement with the rest of your post, I'd posit that its the result of living in a state of basically constant war for a very long time now. Its not accident that, as you note, these are often young people. When the society that forms you is, in part, defined by constant conflict then the actual threat becomes divorced to the fight itself.

We've spent 15 years very visibly fighting people who look different than us without actually impacting our own society directly while doing it. No rations. No draft. No car factories cranking out tanks. No generations missing. Is it any wonder that the more or less toothless (to us) ISIS is end of the world after so many years of war propaganda combined with no actual suffering on our part as a whole?

We've had constant war without constant hardship. Why wouldn't we seek more of it?

[Nadiru]

It's bizarre beyond belief to me. ISIS has not perpetrated a major attack on the US. And even their largest attack in the entire Western world was done by sympathizers, in another country, and was less than a tenth the size of 9/11. And here we are, some quarters wanting our third trillion dollar muslim-world war in twenty years? Are they insane or stupid? Like it would be one thing if ISIS caused a major attack that killed large numbers of Americans, or had anything close to the capability of doing that. But that hasn't happen and won't happen.

You find it bizarre that a generation of kids who have only known socialization to be the act of perpetual war, labeling all opposition terrorism, and desperately seeking safety above all other concerns are looking for some random enemy's ass to kick? Makes perfect sense to me.

[PosPosPos]

So far only good things are coming from soon to be president Trump.

That is, if you dont count the extremist lefties that violently protest, destroy property and burn American flags.

And this is why, my dear, nobody actually believes you are successful as you love to boast and lie about being.

[Deleted]

The good news is, Trump's "plan" in Syria is almost certainly going to be just the existing plan minus Susan Rice and Barack Obama's absurdly restrictive Rules of Engagement (the one that saw ISIS foot soldiers being told to flee before the bombs came).

The reason you have rules of engagement is not some kind of humanitarian wooliness. It is because you keep killing the wrong people then you increase the overall numbers of insurgents. This has been happening for fifteen years. Obama finally seemed to get it after radicalizing half of Pakistan against the US with essentially random drone strikes. You want to go back to that same failed strategy.

What you are now saying is "the petrol is not putting this bonfire out, let's put more petrol on the bonfire."

[BannedForViews]

Without capital controls on the US economy, that money accrued by the rich is free to seek better returns outside of American borders. And it generally does. You can make the argument that it's better because the money is going to vastly poorer people elsewhere on the planet, but it does mean that the rich is essentially taking money from the US to give to the global poor, in an attempt to further enrich themselves.

And the Chinese are pumping money right into our economy, as the Japanese did for decades, and others do. Also, the "rich" are free to do that if they so please. The fact remains that money is being utilized. A lot of overseas investment goes to producing cheaper goods that are imported back into the US. We are richer because of that.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah investments, outsourcing, and personal accounts end up draining a lot of the money whereas like 99% of the money moving in the lower-middle class flows and ends up right back into the economy.

What a narrow and backwards view you have.

[Deleted]

And this is why, my dear, nobody actually believes you are successful as you love to boast and lie about being.

I suspect he has paid thousands of dollars on management and PUA courses. Probably quotes Sun Tsu without irony when he's telling the three people under him about the new waste management reforms. It is a type, the beta male trying to be alpha and overcompensating.

[buck008]

So what exactly do they do with all the money they make? Wait, we are getting ahead of ourselves even. Where does the money come from in the first place to invest? And what happens when you invest money? These are questions none of you show the ability to answer and yet you want to pretend as if you know how the economy works?

Your described way is a fiction. You pretend wealthy people stuff money under their mattresses, and that they are hording money away from "poor" people instead of earning it through mutually agreed upon contracts. The only time you view is EVER even close to reality is when it is protected and controlled by governmental power, the very thing you clamor for.

Oh come on now. We aren't talking advanced economics here. You are willfully misconstruing my post. We were talking about the actions of a government here. That means taxes. That's where the money comes from. Policies that are tax friendly to the very wealthy and corporate entities do not create jobs. That's not how an economy functions. Handing them a check does nothing. You would have to be a moron to hire people that you don't need just because the government handed you a check. Companies expand, build new locations, hire more people, etc when there is demand for their goods and services that can't be met by the existing infrastructure. And they'll try to meet demand with what they have first. People are an expensive recurring cost. Hiring more people is the absolute last thing a company actually wants to do. So the question is, how does one create demand? Instead of distributing that tax revenue to the top and hoping something good happens, you give it to everyone else. When people have money, they spend it. That's how you create real demand. If more regulation is needed to achieve this, than so be it. Regulation is not a bad thing, intrinsically. Exhibit A on the effects of deregulation would be the recession we are just now coming out of. Oh, and many of the people responsible for that recession are now working in the president elect's White House. So good luck out there if you make less than 6 figures.

[Nadiru]

And the Chinese are pumping money right into our economy, as the Japanese did for decades, and others do. Also, the "rich" are free to do that if they so please. The fact remains that money is being utilized. A lot of overseas investment goes to producing cheaper goods that are imported back into the US. We are richer because of that.

No, they don't. Trade flows are grossly tilted towards China. Ironically, the man who's wrong about a lot is dead-on-balls accurate when it comes to trade and China.

[francisbaud]

But he hasnt done anything yet......

I suggest to check his Wikipedia page, especially the section "Business career". He has done a lot.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The irony of people in here who railed on Hillary for not caring about the small man, and only being in the pockets of wall street and big banks are suddenly cheering on the Dumper because people started investing in anticipation of Trump lowering corporate taxes and pouring tons of money into contracts that will pick big companies as winners and the little guy as the losers.

Do people seriously not get by now that the success of wall street does not even remotely translate into the success of the little guy? You'd have to make the majority of your earnings from investments for this to be even remotely good news to you. While the middle class may own investments, those barely make up their yearly income in any meaningful way. Wages continue to rise because of good policy for the last 8 years, and they'll probably rise for the first few years of Trump's presidency - after all, the effects of presidential policy are seen years after the fact. So does anyone want to bookmark this post when wages begin shrinking again, and the middle man gets fucked in the ass in 4-6 years?

[buck008]

So does anyone want to bookmark this post when wages begin shrinking again, and the middle man gets fucked in the ass in 4-6 years?

Trump already said he thinks wages are actually too high right now. So 46% of Americans that file a tax return pay no taxes because they are below the poverty line. People who work are below the poverty line. And wages are too high. Yea, Trump is a real champion of the little guy.

[Glorious Leader]

You find it bizarre that a generation of kids who have only known socialization to be the act of perpetual war, labeling all opposition terrorism, and desperately seeking safety above all other concerns are looking for some random enemy's ass to kick? Makes perfect sense to me.

Theirs always another war to fight. Drugs, communism, terrorism, THE HUNS!!! The perpetual fear/war economy is nothing new.

- - - Updated - - -

The irony of people in here who railed on Hillary for not caring about the small man, and only being in the pockets of wall street and big banks are suddenly cheering on the Dumper because people started investing in anticipation of Trump lowering corporate taxes and pouring tons of money into contracts that will pick big companies as winners and the little guy as the losers.

Do people seriously not get by now that the success of wall street does not even remotely translate into the success of the little guy? You'd have to make the majority of your earnings from investments for this to be even remotely good news to you. While the middle class may own investments, those barely make up their yearly income in any meaningful way. Wages continue to rise because of good policy for the last 8 years, and they'll probably rise for the first few years of Trump's presidency - after all, the effects of presidential policy are seen years after the fact. So does anyone want to bookmark this post when wages begin shrinking again, and the middle man gets fucked in the ass in 4-6 years?

I'm not really sure what kind of answer you expect. Voting for Trump was never about policy and it's now clear it wasn't even about him. It was simple having "our" guy win. Theirs a very real sense that these people don't like being told they're wrong or being told what to do by any experts. They seem to reject intelligence as a whole.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I find it amusing to watch the left consistently claim he's going to ruin the economy because of his protectionist trade policies.

I mean...

It is even more amusing to watch the right consistently claim he's going to save the economy because of his tax breaks and decreased spending when Bush promised the same and ran the economy into the ground.

You pretty much answered it yourself.

Trump's economic plans are Bushonomics on steroids. "Trickle down lite didn't work? Let's go full trickle down deluxe! Take corporate taxes from 35% to 15% and not do a single thing about all of the loopholes they're already able to take advantage of to bring their effective tax rate from 35% to 10%."

Anyone who can't see what corporations paying 0 taxes (ultimately) will do is in full on denial.

[Direpenguin]

It was simple having "our" guy win.

Welcome to US presidential elections.

Don't you remember all the Libs dancing in the streets screaming "WE WON!" when Obama was elected?

But I guess this mentality is suddenly a bad thing (tm) when a guy you don't like wins.

[Glorious Leader]

Welcome to US presidential elections.

Don't you remember all the Libs dancing in the streets screaming "WE WON!" when Obama was elected?

But I guess this mentality is suddenly a bad thing (tm) when a guy you don't like wins.

Not really. Obama has been regularly criticized by his supporters including members of the left. Trump supporters appear to be able to turn a singular blind eye.

[RAGINGBRODADDY]

I mean...



You pretty much answered it yourself.

Trump's economic plans are Bushonomics on steroids. "Trickle down lite didn't work? Let's go full trickle down deluxe! Take corporate taxes from 35% to 15% and not do a single thing about all of the loopholes they're already able to take advantage of to bring their effective tax rate from 35% to 10%."

Anyone who can't see what corporations paying 0 taxes (ultimately) will do is in full on denial.

Crippling a corporation with high tax rates, extreme regulation and forcing it to pay minimum wages is worse.

The government can't force shareholders to do shit, otherwise we see cutbacks in hours, pay and benefits. The more money the shareholders make, the more money the worker makes. Is it equal? No; but it's better than the alternative.

[Glorious Leader]

The more money the shareholders make, the more money the worker makes.

Unfortunately this is simple not true if we consider the empirical record. The gains in productivity over the past 30 years have virtually all been absorbed by the upper income bracket while share of workers wage from corporate profits has been in decline.

http://www.epi.org/publication/the-d...s-for-workers/

[Elegiac]

Crippling a corporation with high tax rates, extreme regulation and forcing it to pay minimum wages is worse.

Worse for the business owner. Everyone else does just fine.

The government can't force shareholders to do shit, otherwise we see cutbacks in hours, pay and benefits. The more money the shareholders make, the more money the worker makes. Is it equal? No; but it's better than the alternative.

Despite the fact that the velocity of money and the median income are much higher when corporations are regulated and taxed. Right.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Both OWS and the Tea Party despised banks,,,

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool wut?

The Tea Party, for as much as they posture, are funded by large corp (such as koch) and banks. Their laissez-faire economic views are the stuff of bankers' wet dreams.

Unless you're talking about a girl's club that drinks tea, and not the far-right movement.