patrick.net

BlueSardine says

No, not relevant.
One president and 1% of a party lying do not make the whole party complicit.

What's relevant is a systematic process by which the Republican party is overtly lying and then purposely sowing distrust in the institution that is calling them on their lies.

And, like I said, you, like all Trumpcucks, are complicit in this process.

What you see as "purposely sowing distrust" can also be viewed as "outing the liars".
Politicians in the past rarely called MSM on it as they needed the coverage to be elected.
In the age of social media, MSM has been effectively neutered, as witnessed by the election of Trump.
Politicofact, a proven non-biased source, has already outed the media as liars, so your "sowing distrust" is nothing more than exposing a biased source of information.
Of course, you hate it as it confirms the loss of influence by the MSM, one of the democratic party's big cannons...

HappyGilmore says

What's relevant is a systematic process by which the Republican party is overtly lying and then purposely sowing distrust in the institution that is calling them on their lies.

BlueSardine says

What you see as "purposely sowing distrust" can also be viewed as "outing the liars".

Did I miss Trump outing himself? If so, please point me to the links on that.


BlueSardine says

Politicians in the past rarely called MSM on it as they needed the coverage to be elected

No--it's because the MSM wasn't lying.

BlueSardine says

Politicofact, a proven non-biased source, has already outed the media as liars, so your "sowing distrust" is nothing more than exposing a biased source of information.

Politofact outed Republican talking heads as liars proving my point. Retired politicians aren't the media--they are retired politicians.

BlueSardine says

Of course, you hate it as it confirms the loss of influence by the MSM, one of the democratic party's big cannons...

No I hate it because it's impossible for people to make good decisions when they are constantly being lied to and cannot tell truth from fiction.

Trump outs himself as a liar with every spoken breath.
This does not disqualify trump from outing the lying media, as long as proven sources back up his 'outings' ( politicofact)

HappyGilmore says

BlueSardine says

What you see as "purposely sowing distrust" can also be viewed as "outing the liars".

Did I miss Trump outing himself? If so, please point me to the links on that.

Politicofact disagrees with you as well as the vast majority of americans who back politicofact.
http://patrick.net/post/1312576?offset=40#comment-1469931
HappyGilmore says

BlueSardine says

Politicians in the past rarely called MSM on it as they needed the coverage to be elected

No--it's because the MSM wasn't lying.

Politicofact outed all MSM and political liars,which proves my point.
I don't give a fuck if they are media or politicians, liars are liars.
HappyGilmore says

BlueSardine says

Politicofact, a proven non-biased source, has already outed the media as liars, so your "sowing distrust" is nothing more than exposing a biased source of information.

Politofact outed Republican talking heads as liars proving my point. Retired politicians aren't the media--they are retired politicians.

BlueSardine says

Politicofact disagrees with you as well as the vast majority of americans who back politicofact.

Nope--politicofact agrees with me. They detail all the Republican politicians that go on CNN to spread their lies.

If people cannot tell truth from fiction then they are either not confirming facts from multiple non political sources, or they are too dumb to discern. ( see libbie college educated )

HappyGilmore says

BlueSardine says

Of course, you hate it as it confirms the loss of influence by the MSM, one of the democratic party's big cannons...

No I hate it because it's impossible for people to make good decisions when they are constantly being lied to and cannot tell truth from fiction.

BlueSardine says

If people cannot tell truth from fiction then they are either not confirming facts from multiple non political sources, or they are too dumb to discern. ( see libbie college educated )

Are you joking? All day, every day on here there are posters who post BS because they don't confirm facts and are too dumb to discern.

Those are the "common men" that Patrick romanticizes though---not the educated.

So what? Happens just about everywhere.
My bet is the majority of non-fact posts are just people out for recreational trolling.
Libbie PC overreach has created this phenomenon.
It's an outlet for the PC constrained...

HappyGilmore says

Are you joking? All day, every day on here there are posters who post BS because they don't confirm facts and are too dumb to discern.

Nope--politicofact detail all liars from prominent people in positions of influence.
The fact that you narrow your focus to one segment of this group unmasks your prejudice.

HappyGilmore says

Nope--politicofact agrees with me. They detail all the Republican politicians that go on CNN to spread their lies.

doubt it.
Case in point. TPB posts all sorts of shit. But every now and then a very succinct and well constructed factual post comes out of him.
He's out to push your buttons 99% of the time, with great success I might add.
Very entertaining...as the libbie posters are mostly constrained to posts that conform to PC standards thus making them excellent bulleyes.
But when he feels the need to make a serious point, he does.
Same with AF...Ceffer...and most of the other entertainers...

HappyGilmore says

You'd lose that bet.

BlueSardine says

doubt it.
Case in point. TPB posts all sorts of shit. But every now and then a very salient and well constructed factual post comes out of him.
He's out to push your buttons 99% of the time, with great success I might add.

I think he's high 99% of the time. But TPB doesn't push anyone's buttons because everyone ignores him 99% of the time.

Case in point

http://patrick.net/post/1312235/2017-12-02-tpb-thinks-trump-is-the-greatest-president-in-a-century-or-two-lol
Mr. Aurora has been trolled.

HappyGilmore says

But TPB doesn't push anyone's buttons

Fake news.
TPB ignored by 6. Patnet users number over 12,000...

HappyGilmore says

But TPB doesn't push anyone's buttons because everyone ignores him 99% of the time

Unless your definition of "everyone" is limited to the PC conforming...

BlueSardine says

Fake news.
TPB ignored by 6. Patnet users number over 12,000...

It's possible to ignore someone without using the ignore feature of pat.net.

It's obvious when you look at the number of threads that TPB has started that have very limited replies.

anon_b8f55 says

3% growth over an extended period is what is needed so that the increased deficit isnt higher. When has there been a prolonged period of 3% growth?

Almost every year in the 90s. Some years of the 2000s and most recently the entire 2005 year, had a few years close to 3% as well recently. Not in ancient history.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543


anon_b8f55 says

And I notice you attacking the people rather than the figures. All figures point to a substantial increase in the deficit. Your post clearly conflated deficit and debt. Was that to deliberately mislead or were you just mixing the two? The fact that you keep pointing out the debt rise under Obama (with clear mitigating circumstances for a large part of that) whilst completely ignoring the fact that debt is projected to rise by a similar amount under Trump if there ISN'T any financial crisis seems a rather strange argument.

Stop with the talking point that I've mixed of debt and deficit. I know the difference. $1.5T is the number that was going around for months now, and the number I have in my head. Not asspull numbers run by Neoliberal Think Tanks with an axe to grind.

Why are Republicans suddenly willing to embrace $1.5 trillion in new debt?

The GOP tax bill being rolled out Thursday includes a premise that used to be apostasy for Republicans: new debt of up to $1.5 trillion.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/11/02/why-republicans-suddenly-willing-embrace-new-debt/824583001/
NOT Deficit, Debt.

I don't recall Leon Panetta running around screaming about $10T in new debt from the Obama Administration.

You are almost there.
TPB is not gaga over trump per se.
He's very happy the hag was not elected and would take just about anyone else over her.
He's very happy that trump is a wrecking ball inserted into federal government to enact change, for better or worse. The status quo could not be tolerated anymore.
His schtick IS a long troll of libbies on pat.net.
"Con" and "Troll" are not synonymous...

HappyGilmore says

lol--so your contention is that TPB is not actually gaga over Trump but that his sctick is a long con trolling pat.net?

It takes a school of libbies swimming nearby for the chum to be effective...

HappyGilmore says

It's obvious when you look at the number of threads that TPB has started that have very limited replies.

On Patnet, "ignore" has a specific connotation.
Please choose another adjective.

HappyGilmore says

It's possible to ignore someone without using the ignore feature of pat.net.

BlueSardine says

On Patnet, "ignore" has a specific connotation.
Please choose another adjective.

Ignore was used as a verb, and the problem was in your assumption, not my word choice.

Well hells Bells your 1st win

HappyGilmore says

Ignore was used as a verb

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Almost every year in the 90s. Some years of the 2000s and most recently the entire 2005 year, had a few years close to 3% as well recently. Not in ancient history.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

So it's been a few decades since there has been the necessary prolonged period of growth - the projections require 3% growth every year not one year. Even you'd have to agree that the world economy is rather different now that it was in the 90s.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Stop with the talking point that I've mixed of debt and deficit. I know the difference. $1.5T is the number that was going around for months now, and the number I have in my head. Not asspull numbers run by Neoliberal Think Tanks with an axe to grind.

Why are Republicans suddenly willing to embrace $1.5 trillion in new debt?

It's not a talking point. From what you posted, you were clearly conflating the two or else you wouldn't have made the point you did.

And your 'what about' comments are getting a bit tired. There were powerful reasons for the rise in the Obama reason. The Republicans spent the entire time attacking him about it, but oh, surprise, surprise, once they get into power the tune changes.

anon_b8f55 says

So it's been a few decades since there has been the necessary prolonged period of growth - the projections require 3% growth every year not one year. Even you'd have to agree that the world economy is rather different now that it was in the 90s.

A few decades? That implies it last happened in the 60s or somesuch. It happened in the 2000s, ONE decade ago, we had a few years of 3%+ growth. The decade before that there was 3%+ growth for much of the years as well. And of course the 80s.

The "No more 3%+ growth" is a neoliberal excuse in the Obama Era for the sluggish recovery.

I repeat the link for your convenience:
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
anon_b8f55 says

And your 'what about' comments are getting a bit tired. There were powerful reasons for the rise in the Obama reason. The Republicans spent the entire time attacking him about it, but oh, surprise, surprise, once they get into power the tune changes.

There is no whataboutery. The most frequently cited number I've seen is $1.5T to the debt over a decade. The Debt was doubled almost $10T since 2008 so the sudden concern for debt spending and the transformation of Obama Boosters into Deficit Hawks seems a little suspicious given the timing of the protest and size of the estimated costs.

"OMG, Trump is increasing the Debt by a Trillion or so, over a decade."
"Dude, when Obama doubled the Debt by $10T in just 8 years, you were all like 'Debt doesn't matter, we owe it to ourselves'"
"Whataboutery!!!!"

I will give you some whataboutery now however, which is, "What about you post under your old handle or go to ignore"?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

A few decades? That implies it last happened in the 60s or somesuch. It happened in the 2000s, ONE decade ago, we had a few years of 3%+ growth. The decade before that there was 3%+ growth for much of the years as well. And of course the 80s.

The last necessary sustained period was in the 90s. That is a few decades ago. Which developed economies have had that kind of sustained growth since?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

There is no whataboutery. The most frequently cited number I've seen is $1.5T to the debt over a decade. The Debt was doubled almost $10T since 2008 so the sudden concern for debt spending and the transformation of Obama Boosters into Deficit Hawks seems a little suspicious given the timing of the protest and size of the estimated costs.

This is ridiculous. You made direct comparisons between the 1.5tn under Trump and the 10tn under Obama when the two are clearly not the same thing. This was either deliberate or you didn't know the difference.
And what do you mean "the sudden concern" about the debt. It's the sudden LACK of concern about the debt from Republicans that is the point. How with a straight face can you/repubs praise this increase in the deficit when you/repubs have spent the last 8 years attacking Obama about it? It's sheer unadulterated hypocrisy.

anon_b8f55 says

The last necessary sustained period was in the 90s. That is a few decades ago. Which developed economies have had that kind of sustained growth since?

A few? You mean two? In any case, there were 2 years of consecutive 3%+ growth in the 2000s (almost 3, one year missed by 2 tenths of percent), so clearly it's possible in the modern era.

In fact the weird thing is that we should have seen 3%+ coming out of the recession give we doubled the Entire Debt heretofore, but didn't.

Stop acting like the last time there was 3%+ Growth, it was the ancient past when appliances came in Mimi Eisenhower Pink.

anon_b8f55 says

This is ridiculous. You made direct comparisons between the 1.5tn under Trump and the 10tn under Obama when the two are clearly not the same thing. This was either deliberate or you didn't know the difference.

Jesus Christmas. Here we go again:

Hey Jimmy Two-Times, come over and help me with this guy, awright?
"Okay, let me get the papers. Get the papers."

www.youtube.com/embed/93oxdtP6JNc

Why are Republicans suddenly willing to embrace $1.5 trillion in new debt?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/11/02/why-republicans-suddenly-willing-embrace-new-debt/824583001/
Tony, can you read the key terms from the article?
"Sure thing, Two Scoops. Two Scoops"
Not Deficit Not Deficit. It's Debt It's Debt. $1.5T, uh $1.5T in Debt, Debt.

Over how long?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans are zeroing in on a tax outline that would add about $1.5 trillion to the government’s $20 trillion debt over 10 years, justifying the spurt of red ink with promises of surging economic growth and a burst of new revenues.

https://apnews.com/c8b8370ec2564ebd92d26ddeee866a0b/Senate-GOP-tentatively-agrees-to-$1.5T-plan-on-tax-cuts

Sorry for the Geocities shit, but DAMN c'mon.

Now, please explain why doubling the Debt in the name of the slowest recovery in the postwar era was a good thing, but adding less than 10% to the total $20T debt is so far beyond the pale absolutely unthinkable?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Now, please explain why doubling the Debt in the name of the slowest recovery in the postwar era was a good thing, but adding less than 10% to the total $20T debt is so far beyond the pale absolutely unthinkable?

No, that's at best 1.5T on top of 10T already baked in. 1.5 with some rosy growth assumptions. At best we will only be at 30T in debt in 10 years. If rosy projections turn out not to be true, we might be 35T in debt due by then.

Do you realize that we run 270B deficit in 2007 when economy was on fire. We should have been running 300B surplus then. The point is that Obama was in for 5T of structural deficits before he did anything about bailing out the rest of the economy. I don't agree with the approach we took as a country and loaded up on too much debt. Trump is only making the situation worse though.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

A few? You mean two? In any case, there were 2 years of consecutive 3%+ growth in the 2000s (almost 3, one year missed by 2 tenths of percent), so clearly it's possible in the modern era.

In fact the weird thing is that we should have seen 3%+ coming out of the recession give we doubled the Entire Debt heretofore, but didn't.

Stop acting like the last time there was 3%+ Growth, it was the ancient past when appliances came in Mimi Eisenhower Pink.

Possible but every single year - highly unlikely given how the world economy has changed in the last decade, and most certainly not a basis for arguing how the effects of tax cuts may be mitigated. All that still ignores the utter hypocrisy of the act and the fact it does nothing to dampen a growing debt, something that would be better done in a period of growth than when the shit really hits the fan, wouldn't you agree?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Jesus Christmas. Here we go again:

Hey Jimmy Two-Times, come over and help me with this guy, awright?
"Okay, let me get the papers. Get the papers."

You have to laugh. Do you read your own posts?
Perhaps you should reread post #58.

Which is why THEY have to explain why a tax cut that may, IF the model is right, result in a piddling $1.5T debt increase, compared to the double of debt in the last decade to the tune of what, $10T I think, is such a Major Big Deal, So Irresponsible(tm)

Like I said, you are conflating two different things, either because you don't know the difference or you are trying to mislead.If someone complains for eight years about the debt (despite there being strong mitigating circumstances for the level of the increase), and then turns around and is happy to add even more to the deficit just because their people are in power (and at a time when it would be more logical to trim the budget deficit by raising taxes), don't piss and moan when others point out the rank hypocrisy.

Obama came in after the worst financial shock in 80 years, and had a very long term of growth. He also oversaw huge deficit decreases, too.
Trump came on board with low unemployment, and a booming stock market, and his great idea is to increase the deficit with a huge tax cut to the companies with inflated net worth. Genius. Reverse Keynes. Go Trump.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Genius. Reverse Keynes. Go Trump.

Obama = deflation. Trump = inflation. Pick your poison.

Deflation makes it easier for the people with all the money to buy up even more land, goods, stocks, and thus become even wealthier!

Inflation makes it easier for the working class to pay off mortgages, student loans, and other debt, while moderately screwing the wealthy who aren’t diversified enough.

Which do YOU prefer? Your choice will say a lot about you.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

his great idea is to increase the deficit with a huge tax cut to the companies with inflated net worth. Genius. Reverse Keynes. Go Trump.

It’s genius if the goal is to win the next couple of elections! People react quite poorly to tax raises. Just look at how Bush I lost his re-election bid after raising taxes (quite reasonably) in an attempt at fiscal responsibility. Then Bill Clinton was able to come in and take credit for both a booming economy (due to new technologies) and a balanced budget (due to Bush’s tax raise). It was good for the country, but terrible for elections.

Obama’s effective tax raise was also unpopular, even though he swore that it wouldn’t affect anyone making less than $250,000. People felt it in their paychecks immediately, however, and that plus The ACA just destroyed the Democrats in the next two or three elections. As his party was getting that “shellacking” Obama managed to win his re-election bid because his Republican opponent ran the worst race possible, seemingly in an attempt to lose. Even people who wound up voting for Romney didn’t really want him.

So, moral of the story: if you want your party to win, you should cut taxes not raise them.

Inflation would be far better, but this tax plan won't lead to it unfortunately. It will widen the inequality gap and lead to lower inflation as money velocity falls and interest rates fall further.

Quigley says

So, moral of the story: if you want your party to win, you should cut taxes not raise them.

So what about the increasing deficit? It does not matter anymore?

The deficit never mattered for practical purposes.
The deficit always mattered for political purposes.
The bigger question is why you do not know this...

anotheraccount says

So what about the increasing deficit? It does not matter anymore?

anotheraccount says

It does not matter anymore?

It rarely has to voters. Otherwise Bush I would have become plenipotentiary for life!