The Nation's Financial Condition

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debt ... itedstates



Thank you, Trump.


Amazing how right wingers no longer concern themselves with this problem. Gee, I wonder why.

Neither side cares about the debt.....that is so old news.

I've watched members of my family as well as friends, who were ardent Tea Party supporters, morph to support of Trumpism and discard any semblance of concern about debt. It's really amazing to me, but what I think explains it is that their true, but unspoken, issue was an underlying fear and anger about a future they didn't comprehend. It was looking for a narrative that was in opposition to that future. Any narrative.

Was it racist or sexist? Yes. In my family and friends' cases it was not overt, but that's what it was (and is).
It was very angry and words like 'hate' came easily to their lips.

Debt and deficits (IMO) were simply a cudgel against the new President coming into a situation that both his predecessor Administration and his own believed could only be survived with a massive increase in federal spending stimulus and support of key financial and industrial (auto) enterprises. It had great appeal as philosophy of accountability familiar to kitchen table realities of not spending more than you have (yet Americans do, regularly).

But a new narrative was presented with Trumpism that went more directly at the core drivers of the fear and anger about a future in which non-whites and women will have a much greater role and power. So, debt and deficits mattered no more, and passions were transferred to a candidate, now President, who told them what they really wanted to hear.

Interestingly, I'm seeing some very real change in tenor about Trump and the corruption of this Administration within those family members and friends, post Helsinki, Cohen plea, Manafort conviction. They are openly critical about his style and lack of integrity, though 'whataboutism' still remains the default instinct. Again, my friends and family don't think of themselves as racist or sexist, and don't actually want to be associated with such, so the overt aspects of Trumpism have worn them thin in these areas as well. Apparently that's not the case with the 24% of Americans who "strongly support" Trump and I'd suggest that % won't ever change much given that there really is that segment of our population, no matter how overt.

What's clear to me is that there is a softening of the rest of the support and a growing realization that the corruption surrounding Trump, and his own lack of integrity, are unavoidable.

At least in the most recent poll, (which may or may not be confirmed by subsequent polling), the direction does appear to be as I'm suggesting post Helsinki, Cohen, and Manafort.

I think that after the dust clears with the corruption, etc, there will eventually be a realization that the debt is an enormous problem and we'll get back to arguing about how best to rein in its growth. But it'll not be on the table until actual fiscal conservatives have a voice again. Right now they are shouted down.

[Brooklyn]

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debt ... itedstates



Thank you, Trump.


Amazing how right wingers no longer concern themselves with this problem. Gee, I wonder why.

Neither side cares about the debt.....that is so old news.

You are partly correct - right wingers no longer care about the debt because one of their own is in the White Wash House. If Hillary had been there, these delusionals would make it a part of their public discourse each and every day. And you know it.

[dislaxxic]

Top Trump Aide Was 'Astounded' by the President's 'Lack of Basic Understanding' of the Economy: Woodward

Every day, more mind-boggling stories of incompetence and hubris...

But since he SAYS all the credit for a roaring economy accrues to him, it must be so, right?

Right??

..

[runrussellrun]

Top Trump Aide Was 'Astounded' by the President's 'Lack of Basic Understanding' of the Economy: Woodward

Every day, more mind-boggling stories of incompetence and hubris...

But since he SAYS all the credit for a roaring economy accrues to him, it must be so, right?

Right??

..

Our young nation has been in deficit mode since year one and the Society of Cincinatti types didn't want to pay the soldiers that gave the elites there freedom from the King. Question, which came first, the womans right to vote or income tax

[runrussellrun]

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debt ... itedstates



Thank you, Trump.


Amazing how right wingers no longer concern themselves with this problem. Gee, I wonder why.

Neither side cares about the debt.....that is so old news.

I've watched members of my family as well as friends, who were ardent Tea Party supporters, morph to support of Trumpism and discard any semblance of concern about debt. It's really amazing to me, but what I think explains it is that their true, but unspoken, issue was an underlying fear and anger about a future they didn't comprehend. It was looking for a narrative that was in opposition to that future. Any narrative.

Was it racist or sexist? Yes. In my family and friends' cases it was not overt, but that's what it was (and is).
It was very angry and words like 'hate' came easily to their lips.

Debt and deficits (IMO) were simply a cudgel against the new President coming into a situation that both his predecessor Administration and his own believed could only be survived with a massive increase in federal spending stimulus and support of key financial and industrial (auto) enterprises. It had great appeal as philosophy of accountability familiar to kitchen table realities of not spending more than you have (yet Americans do, regularly).

But a new narrative was presented with Trumpism that went more directly at the core drivers of the fear and anger about a future in which non-whites and women will have a much greater role and power. So, debt and deficits mattered no more, and passions were transferred to a candidate, now President, who told them what they really wanted to hear.

Interestingly, I'm seeing some very real change in tenor about Trump and the corruption of this Administration within those family members and friends, post Helsinki, Cohen plea, Manafort conviction. They are openly critical about his style and lack of integrity, though 'whataboutism' still remains the default instinct. Again, my friends and family don't think of themselves as racist or sexist, and don't actually want to be associated with such, so the overt aspects of Trumpism have worn them thin in these areas as well. Apparently that's not the case with the 24% of Americans who "strongly support" Trump and I'd suggest that % won't ever change much given that there really is that segment of our population, no matter how overt.

What's clear to me is that there is a softening of the rest of the support and a growing realization that the corruption surrounding Trump, and his own lack of integrity, are unavoidable.

At least in the most recent poll, (which may or may not be confirmed by subsequent polling), the direction does appear to be as I'm suggesting post Helsinki, Cohen, and Manafort.

I think that after the dust clears with the corruption, etc, there will eventually be a realization that the debt is an enormous problem and we'll get back to arguing about how best to rein in its growth. But it'll not be on the table until actual fiscal conservatives have a voice again. Right now they are shouted down.

Now I see you are projecting and thinking anyone with any semblance of support for Trumps administration is angry. Frankly, can't read beyond your first paragraph. Perhaps you could write a book ! In the meantime, like a marriage counciler, can you NOT say one good thing that Trumps administration has done. (if you need help, ask AFAN )

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debt ... itedstates



Thank you, Trump.


Amazing how right wingers no longer concern themselves with this problem. Gee, I wonder why.

Neither side cares about the debt.....that is so old news.

I've watched members of my family as well as friends, who were ardent Tea Party supporters, morph to support of Trumpism and discard any semblance of concern about debt. It's really amazing to me, but what I think explains it is that their true, but unspoken, issue was an underlying fear and anger about a future they didn't comprehend. It was looking for a narrative that was in opposition to that future. Any narrative.

Was it racist or sexist? Yes. In my family and friends' cases it was not overt, but that's what it was (and is).
It was very angry and words like 'hate' came easily to their lips.

Debt and deficits (IMO) were simply a cudgel against the new President coming into a situation that both his predecessor Administration and his own believed could only be survived with a massive increase in federal spending stimulus and support of key financial and industrial (auto) enterprises. It had great appeal as philosophy of accountability familiar to kitchen table realities of not spending more than you have (yet Americans do, regularly).

But a new narrative was presented with Trumpism that went more directly at the core drivers of the fear and anger about a future in which non-whites and women will have a much greater role and power. So, debt and deficits mattered no more, and passions were transferred to a candidate, now President, who told them what they really wanted to hear.

Interestingly, I'm seeing some very real change in tenor about Trump and the corruption of this Administration within those family members and friends, post Helsinki, Cohen plea, Manafort conviction. They are openly critical about his style and lack of integrity, though 'whataboutism' still remains the default instinct. Again, my friends and family don't think of themselves as racist or sexist, and don't actually want to be associated with such, so the overt aspects of Trumpism have worn them thin in these areas as well. Apparently that's not the case with the 24% of Americans who "strongly support" Trump and I'd suggest that % won't ever change much given that there really is that segment of our population, no matter how overt.

What's clear to me is that there is a softening of the rest of the support and a growing realization that the corruption surrounding Trump, and his own lack of integrity, are unavoidable.

At least in the most recent poll, (which may or may not be confirmed by subsequent polling), the direction does appear to be as I'm suggesting post Helsinki, Cohen, and Manafort.

I think that after the dust clears with the corruption, etc, there will eventually be a realization that the debt is an enormous problem and we'll get back to arguing about how best to rein in its growth. But it'll not be on the table until actual fiscal conservatives have a voice again. Right now they are shouted down.

The above post was about the GOP's and more specifically the Tea Party's abandonment of concern about the debt.

My thesis is that a large portion of the Tea Party was simply looking for an excuse to be angry, not a real concern. Else they would not so easily abandon those concerns today.

I think the underlying anger was primarily driven by fear, both racist and sexist, of the changing demographics of America. Again, far too many expressions of actual hate are the only survivors from the Tea Party.

Of course there are aspects of the Trump Administration which are ok. I'm not sure that I can point to something that I feel is materially better as a result of this Administration, though, as I think we'll need to see the repercussions over time. But apart from the "Administration", I have no question about how I feel about the President himself.

[Trinity]

Jared told Woodward that Trump’s broke.

[runrussellrun]

Jared told Woodward that Trump’s broke.

He was talking about his moral compass, not bank account.

Robert reich understands economics. Same with Ted Geithner (although he couldn't figure out how to properly pay his own taxes) How many other "smart" guys (any WOMAN head up the Treasury? too stupid, according to former Harvard President Larry Summers )

All these people that "understand" economics.....just can't seem to balance the budget. Or even audit the Pentagon of Fed for that matter.

[Trinity]

Jared said he’s got no cash. We know he’s got no morals. That’s hardly news.

[runrussellrun]

Jared said he’s got no cash. We know he’s got no morals. That’s hardly news.

Where are getting this "quote" from? Besides, who carries cash anymore?

[HooDat]

MD, not EVERYTHING is racism or sexism or some other coastal defined "ism":

My thesis is that a large portion of the Tea Party was simply looking for an excuse to be angry, not a real concern. Else they would not so easily abandon those concerns today.

I think the underlying anger was primarily driven by fear, both racist and sexist, of the changing demographics of America. Again, far too many expressions of actual hate are the only survivors from the Tea Party.

My view on the Tea Party movement is that there was indeed a lot of anger driving them. And, yes there were participants that were motivated by racism (just like there are parts of BLM and Antifa that are also driven by baser instincts).

But, the fear that motivated the majority of Tea Party supporters (vs the reprobates that glom on to any movement guided by anger) was the fear of seeing their way of life being destroyed by the increased corporate control of the US via outsourcing and downsizing in addition to their instinctual understanding of the explosion in the wage gap between executives and working stiffs (that still had jobs) that was taking place.

[holmes435]

And yet they wanted to hand the country over to those same executives. They wanted someone else, but ended up with some entitled NYC millionaire businessman born with a silver spoon who inherited millions and shills gold-plated "luxury" brands.

"I want the country run like a business dadgummit"
"If a company was run like this country, it would be out of business"

I can't tell you how many times I've heard those lines. If that happens most of the people get left out in the cold.

--------------

I disagree that the majority of the Tea Party supporters were fearing a loss of their way of life due to income inequality and globalization, or else it would be an even bigger movement today. There's no coincidence that it popped up right after Obama was elected and has mostly disappeared now that he's gone, or that the Koch's had a lot to do with its fomenting.

It was mostly just a re-branding of a variety of far-right ideas that gained traction, including a number of isms.

[HooDat]

The problem with all "movements" is that folks with kids, and jobs, and soccer games, etc.... don't tend to participate. So, in the end, the face of every "movement" becomes the violent extremes (left or right). The 80% in the middle are just too busy living their lives.....

[MDlaxfan76]

MD, not EVERYTHING is racism or sexism or some other coastal defined "ism":

My thesis is that a large portion of the Tea Party was simply looking for an excuse to be angry, not a real concern. Else they would not so easily abandon those concerns today.

I think the underlying anger was primarily driven by fear, both racist and sexist, of the changing demographics of America. Again, far too many expressions of actual hate are the only survivors from the Tea Party.

My view on the Tea Party movement is that there was indeed a lot of anger driving them. And, yes there were participants that were motivated by racism (just like there are parts of BLM and Antifa that are also driven by baser instincts).

But, the fear that motivated the majority of Tea Party supporters (vs the reprobates that glom on to any movement guided by anger) was the fear of seeing their way of life being destroyed by the increased corporate control of the US via outsourcing and downsizing in addition to their instinctual understanding of the explosion in the wage gap between executives and working stiffs (that still had jobs) that was taking place.

I think that's a pretty fair description of what it morphed into with the urging of Trump...but the primary ideological message of the Tea Party was debt and deficits, not "increased corporate control of the US via outsourcing and downsizing". Now, the 99% percent crowd in Central Park were definitely attacking the issue of wealth disparity, but that was from the left, not the Tea Party. And Bernie certainly gave voice to that side of the argument.

Where there was some overlap on the corporate fact bandwagon, though, was the outrage about the financial bailouts of the big banks when folks were losing their homes and jobs. And, because (IMO) Obama pushed for an auto bailout as well, they were incensed by that as well. But it was all within the notion of "fiscal conservatism", that debt and deficits were fundamentally dangerous and Obama was a dangerous lefty who was spending the US into oblivion.

I think there was all sorts of rational basis for great anxiety (and there still is frankly) about the effects of both globalism and technology as disruptive forces that demand change in how we work, where we live, who we go to school with, etc that some people find really hard to comprehend. And the primary driver of their fear is far more about demographics than economics. But saying that out loud, pre-Trump, was not acceptable. Way more acceptable today to loudly proclaim one's anger and hate of others on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, gender, etc..

But there's no ideological consistency with the original Tea Party message about debt and deficits. Thus my thesis that such was just an excuse for the fear and anger about demographically driven dislocation. Could be wrong, but it's currently the explanation that makes the most sense to me.

[dislaxxic]

Analysts Debunk the White House's Myth of the Booming 'Trump Economy'

Posters here are saying the same thing...just posted this to show that they re not the only ones seeing what MANY see in Orange Duce's vacuous claims.

..

[dislaxxic]

Ten Years After the Crash, We’ve Learned Nothing [RS]

"Ten years ago, on Saturday, September 13th, 2008, the world was about to end.

The New York Federal Reserve was a zoo. Imagine NASA headquarters on the day a giant asteroid careens into the atmosphere. That was the New York Fed: all hands on deck, peak human panic.

The crowd included future Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, then-Treasury Secretary (and former Goldman Sachs CEO) Hank Paulson, the representatives of multiple regulatory offices, and the CEOs of virtually every major bank in New York, each toting armies of bean counters and bankers."

[snip]

Matt Taibbi debunks three of the largest MYTHS about the 2008 crash:

Myth#1: The crash was an accident
Myth #2: The crash was caused by greedy homeowners
Myth #3: The bailouts were about saving capitalism

Seriously, we have learned NOTHING.

...and you know what that means.

..

[dislaxxic]

WHAT PAULSON, BERNANKE, GEITHNER AND NEIL IRWIN DON’T GET

"Irwin defends the actions taken in pursuit of the purported goal of “saving the financial system”, saying that they worked. The economy isn’t perfect, but inflation is relatively low, and while job gains were low, the current unemployment rate is 3.9%. Irwin ignores the fact that competent economists expected low inflation, and doesn’t mention that the share of the population with jobs is still down over two points from the peak in 2000 among those aged 25-54, and still not back the pre-Crash levels 10 years later. His glib skimming over the 10-year slow increase in jobs ignores the lost wages, and ignores the low pay and insecurity of the new jobs.

Irwin thinks that the problem was that the trio of leaders did not manage the politics correctly. They did nothing to help homeowners, because, according to Irwin, the political environment was toxic, citing the usual suspects, Rick Santelli and the Tea Party. Bernanke cites long-term trends, “…stagnation in middle-class wages, social dysfunctions, rising mistrust in government and hostility to immigration”, but that has the feel of both-siderism when everyone knows it was driven by the right wing. Irwin accepts this explanation."

Neil Irwin is a NYT writer...'

"Again, nowhere in this piece does Irwin talk about crimes, fraud, cheating, or corporate wrong-doing. I agree that the problem was political. The Obama Administration, specifically Eric Holder and his deputy Lanny Breuer, refused to conduct criminal investigations into the people who lied, cheated and stole from the investing public and the millions of people cheated in mortgage transactions. The pointless and stupid civil cases were slaps on the wrist of banks, and hardly dented the returns to their shareholders. Not a single banker went to jail, despite overwhelming evidence of fraud.

This is not just a political failure. It’s a moral failure. Obama decided to absolve the bankers who committed crimes, and in doing so clarified to the American people that we have a two-tier system of justice. The rich and powerful are coddled. Everyone else is beaten into the dirt by the legal system. It’s not the salvage operation the holy three managed that drives the anger; it’s the lack of accountability. Explaining the salvage operation gets a lot easier when people see a steady stream of guilty pleas and massive fines and forfeitures."

That's right, Obama...ACTING LIKE A CONSERVATIVE...decided to absolve the bankers who committed crimes. It's one of many reasons that the left was always at him to "cut it out" and govern like more to the left. Yes, that idea, in this case, would have meant a few prosecutions of banksters...

..

[HooDat]

That's right, Obama...ACTING LIKE A CONSERVATIVE...decided to absolve the bankers who committed crimes. It's one of many reasons that the left was always at him to "cut it out" and govern like more to the left. Yes, that idea, in this case, would have meant a few prosecutions of banksters...

Dis - jump into the TAATS pool, the water is fine!!

The "left" and the "right" are not "real". They are stage props for the 0.1%.

Paulson, Bernake, Geithner - they should all be in JAIL. Instead what are they? .... rich as snot!

[MDlaxfan76]

That's right, Obama...ACTING LIKE A CONSERVATIVE...decided to absolve the bankers who committed crimes. It's one of many reasons that the left was always at him to "cut it out" and govern like more to the left. Yes, that idea, in this case, would have meant a few prosecutions of banksters...

Dis - jump into the TAATS pool, the water is fine!!

The "left" and the "right" are not "real". They are stage props for the 0.1%.

Paulson, Bernake, Geithner - they should all be in JAIL. Instead what are they? .... rich as snot!

In jail?
There were a bunch of bankers who actually committed fraud, and should have gone to jail, but Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner?

[dislaxxic]

At a meeting earlier this month in Vladivostok, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping agreed to bypass the dollar and use their own currencies in commercial relations.

"Much of American economic and global power rests on the universal use of the dollar as the settlements and reserve currency of choice. It allows the United States, among other things, to run huge trade and budget deficits and to impose crippling economic sanctions on other countries. If the American dollar became overnight a exotic national currency like Turkey’s Lira, then in order to balance its accounts and pay for its deficit, the U.S. would have to raise interest rates to attract foreign currencies, even if that meant crippling business and home finance. If the dollar were to cease being a global currency, that would weaken the American economy and damage international trade. The moves by Russia, China, France, Germany, and the UK to begin to decouple themselves from the American-dominated monetary system could come to nothing but these could also lay the basis for a greater challenge down the road to American dominance."

Great idea, putting a businessman...THIS businessman, in charge of the American government...

..