Let's fire Trump

80+% of the America economy is consumer spending, and its NOT Lamborghini s and Hinkley Tellaria Yachts, its everyday stuff. When the GOP is incentivizing the mega wealthy, they take and spend much of their stuff OFFSHORE.

What isn't? Do you have any economic details you want to make a point about? Or are you just trying to say something like the following?:, "I like living in western Europe, so socialism must be good because they have it there in some way, I think, because that's what people have told me."


There are arguments to be made against all these products, but if all you're trying to do is demonize the GOP in order to promote the Democrats as a 'lesser evil,' that's another Democrat political tactic I dislike.

If you are against policies, criticize the policies and work to convince people who support them to stop. That's different than always making a factional crusade out of every criticism.

One other reason I distrust Democrats is that I think the reason they always try to turn everything into a reason to vote the GOP out and them in is because they are going to use government to filter money around and they get kickbacks from that. So the subsidies on sugar, oil, etc. you mention won't go away if they are supporters of GDP growth; but the Democrats will just make sure to filter money to their friends and the status quo will continue nevertheless, or rather it will get stimulated all the more.


Subsidizing low-income housing stimulates higher demand for expensive housing in expensive areas, which just gives more money to developers. Truly affordable housing involves permitting year-round living in RVs/tiny-houses, something that most municipal government prohibit or restrict because it doesn't force people into more expensive housing, either with or without subsidies.


Subsidies drive up prices. If you want to "make sure the least of us get what we need," get people and businesses to stop wasting food and change consumer tastes so that people don't choose foods that waste more resources. Tofu is made directly from soy beans, instead of feeding them to livestock, for example, but try getting people to trade in meat for tofu and see how many will do so.


I don't know what you're saying/implying here about euthanasia.

People have to adopt lifestyles that are sustainable. That means not driving, living in efficient housing, and choosing products that don't waste resources. There is some standard of living possible where you can have more people live in an area without increasing the number of vehicles on the roads, pavement on the ground, and acres cleared of trees and natural ecology; but it requires people resist the temptation to drive cars and live in the way that harm the environment and wastes resources.



I don't get this one at all. Cite an artificial estuary where this happens. If anything you're describing an unrestricted capitalistic system I don't recognize as ever happening though trickle-downers and Libertarians probably orgasm at the mere thought of it.[/quote]
It's an excellent analogy so think about it: if you have a fish farm and you feed lots of smaller fish to build them up and then you release them into the ocean with bigger fish and sharks, there's going to be more food for the bigger fish and sharks and those populations are going to grow larger and they will expect more food as a result.

It's the same with subsidizing the little guy in an economy where there are bigger businesses making money selling things to the little guy. If you stop subsidizing the little guy, the businesses that cater to them won't be able to charge as much, and they will make less money; so there will be less sharks and aggressive business tactics in general, simply because there is not as much money circulating around for them to feed on.


western Europe makes lots of money in the US by selling drugs and cars and car parts, etc. They also invest in China, where lots of consumer goods are made and exported. So when you look at these welfare states in western Europe you like so much, they can only afford to treat their citizens/beneficiaries so well because they invest in larger, more wasteful economies like the US, where lots of money circulates and ends up with certain people, who can then afford to pay extravagant prices for drugs, luxury cars, etc. which are what western Europe exports to make a lot of money for a lot of people while giving them lots of free time and paid vacations, etc.




It was kinda breath taking to see that you believe welfare for multi-billion dollar corporations builds their character and giving $1500 to the poor depletes their character.[/quote]
You're accusing me of saying things I didn't say because it fits your stupid Democrat narrative of rationalizing welfare for the poor because there's welfare for the rich.

What I'm telling you is that there's a better economy that can develop when there is less growth. Recessionary/deflationary trends have positive effects, but they can't happen if you keep justifying increasing subsidies the moment the Republicans bail out big business so it doesn't go under and leave us all completely without any economy whatsoever.


Airlines shouldn't even be a major mode of travel because of climate problems they cause.


Economic intervention should be used in the most minimal way to prevent bankruptcy of basic businesses whose failure would cause catastrophe.

The problem with this economy is there's no way to get people to give up the things that would produce the kinds of reforms that are really needed to solve the climate crisis. E.g. the majority of people need to stop driving personal motor-vehicles, but people will go homeless and live in their cars before they will give up their cars. There are also many people who get public assistance but then get extra money from drug sales or money that circulates through poor communities as a result of drug sales that don't directly involve the people benefiting. If a young woman works as a prostitute and brings drugs with her to a rich/middle-class client, and then she takes the money he gives her and pays for hair, nails, clothing, more drugs, and gives money to her needy family members; she is a community hero in terms of bringing money into the community, but if people can continue to afford to drive and waste other resources, then it becomes impossible for consumer lifestyles to adapt to a more climate-friendly paradigm.

Thats why I pointed out to livinglava that there is a huge piles of wealth in this country sitting there. Billionaires do not spend their equity on billions of dollars of yachts or Lambogini's either. This country will fail. The stimulous checks will go to existing debt.

"It is a slow day in the small Saskatchewan town of Pumphandle, and streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody is living on credit.

A tourist visiting the area drives through town, stops at the motel, and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs to pick one for the night. As soon as he walks upstairs, the motel owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.

The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.

The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill to his supplier, the Co-op.

The guy at the Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her "services" on credit.

The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with the hotel owner.

The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter so the traveler will not suspect anything.

At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, picks up the $100 bill and leaves. No one produced anything. No one earned anything...

However, the whole town is now out of debt and now looks to the future with a lot more optimism.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a Stimulus package works."

Its not the spending, its the sucking up of dollars and freezing them. Lower circulation of dollars makes things expensive without inflation. Printing more dollars makes things expensive by inflation. Inflation without spending is recession. Long term recession is Depression.

I paid attention in class and read the book, too.

US consumer spending is the reason there is climate change, yet Democrats always want to stimulate and subsidize US consumer spending.

Why can't they just realize that US consumer spending has to go down to achieve the green reforms they claim to be for?

There are only two things to do with money:
1) spend/invest it
2) save it by not spending/investing it

Saving it and not spending it is what causes prices to come down. If people aren't spending money, sellers have to lower their prices to get sales. The more they lower their prices, the more you can buy with your saved money before it is depleted.

Sounds good until you get to this:



Until they have to sell for less than it cost to make and that causes recession. And businesses start closing their doors. Ah, you say, just print more money. Then you get the Wiemar Republic. I believe in capitalism and market driven economy. I do not believe in vulture capitalism. But capitalism in this country believes in a controlled inflation and while I miss buying $.29/gal gasoline, I understand keeping oil at a price that pays for refining it and selling me $2.00/gal gasoline that actually costs me less than the $.29/gal from 1960 gasoline I used to buy.

Poop. THIS COUNTRY WILL NOT FAIL.

Mercury pollution — the slippery slope
BY ELLEN KURLANSKY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 04/16/20 03:00

In a giant favor to the coal industry, the Trump administration is poised to undermine the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS) that control mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that damages the brain of developing fetuses, increases the likelihood of heart attacks and causes serious harm to the nervous, reproductive, renal and immune systems.

These facts have not stopped the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from proposing to revoke its previous finding that is “appropriate and necessary” to curb releases of mercury, arsenic and other hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired power plants.

Ironically, the power industry is in compliance with MATS, which was issued by the Obama administration in 2012. Toxic emissions from power plants have fallen by more than 90 percent at a fraction of the cost originally estimated by EPA.

Almost no one wants this regulation rescinded. The electric power industry has actually asked EPA to leave MATS in place. It has installed the necessary equipment and is operating in compliance with the rule. Utility commissions have allowed most power companies to recoup their costs based on MATS compliance. The environmental, medical and public health communities, as well as environmental justice organizations that represent mostly low-income communities and people of color who live near coal-fired power plants, strongly support MATS.

There is one clear outlier. Bob Murray, founder and chairman of the bankrupt coal company, Murray Energy. Not only is he a Trump supporter and major donor to the Trump inauguration, but following President Trump’s inaugural ceremony, Murray sent a wish list of actions that he thinks will save coal; killing MATS is on it.

But killing MATS will not save coal. Coal is failing because it is cheaper to generate electricity with natural gas and, increasingly, renewable energy.

For now, MATS remains in place. But with this devious finding that it is not appropriate or necessary to control mercury and other air toxics from power plants, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is inviting the coal industry to challenge the legitimacy of the rule. There are sound legal arguments to rebut such a challenge, but there is no guarantee that they will carry the day.

The Trump administration justifies this reckless action with a bogus economic analysis that purports to show that MATS costs more than its benefits are worth. To get that result, they inflate the cost of MATS and simply don’t count most of the benefits, including the direct benefits of controlling mercury and the indirect benefits of the reduced particulate pollution that results when mercury emissions are controlled.

But the benefits of MATS are real, even if the EPA chooses not to count them. They include hundreds of lives saved each year, thousands of babies born annually without neurologic damage and the decrease of thousands of asthma attacks and respiratory illnesses that result in hospitalizations, lost work and school days each year.

EPA is reversing a rule with benefits greater than its costs. It is corrupt and cruel to put people at risk for no good reason but to appease the coal industry and its champions.

Trump Calls on People to 'LIBERATE' Virus-Stricken States With Democratic Governors

Read more: https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-calls-on-people-to-liberate-virus-stricken-states-with-democratic-governors

In a disturbing new series of tweets, President Trump on Friday urged Americans to “liberate” three U.S. states that are run by Democratic governors amid protests over coronavirus shutdowns. The three tweets took aim at Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia. “LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment.

It is under siege!” one tweet read. Trump on Thursday refused to criticize protesters in some states, including Michigan, who are flouting stay-at-home orders and social-distancing guidelines amid the deadly pandemic. “I think they’re listening, I think they listen to me,” he said. “They seem to be protesters that like me and respect this opinion, and my opinion is the same as just about all of the governors.”

Trump has gone back and forth on who should have the ultimate authority to reopen state’s economies. On Monday, he claimed he has “total” power as president, while on Thursday he insisted governors would be able to “tailor [an] approach that meets the diverse circumstances of their own states”—the same day the U.S. deaths from COVID-19 hit a record 4,591 people.

The presidents opinion is not disturbing, it is his opinion. Those states have wannabe dictators as governors. Deal with it.

Business costs are also the result of prices. So if the businesses that sell to other businesses also reduce their prices to get sales, the cost of doing business goes down.


Printing money causes inflation. That's exactly what they shouldn't do, along with other types of stimulus and bailouts. Businesses that want to stay in business lower their prices or go out of business.

The problem that could/would happen, though, is that some investors can afford to just buy up property from bankrupt businesses and do nothing with it until the government injects money to restart the economy at previous price levels, which is what happens so often it becomes an expectation.

The dark side of recession/depression is that if there are no bailouts, then people without money may just start dying and eventually businesses have to realize that it's better to invest in a human being to keep them alive than to let them die, because they are worth nothing dead, whereas they are worth at least a little alive.


Controlled inflation is keynesian socialism. It is the global standard and exactly what is done in the US as well, but people don't want to call it what it is because the term, 'socialism' is unpopular and causes negative reactions.

What's wrong with Keynes? He's a capitalist. I already told you I do not believe in vampire capitalism.

Social-capitalism is also capitalism, but it's still socialism.

What's wrong with it is that it prevents recession/deflation.

If there is no recession, there is no impetus to cut budgets, lower prices, reform economic behaviors.

There are reforms that should have happened during the 1970s oil crisis or before that don't because there is never enough recessionary/deflationary pressure for it to.

Most people drive motor-vehicles in the US instead of using transit and/or changing where/how they live and work because investors keep stimulating the economy with low gas prices, highway/infrastructure investments, etc.

The current climate problems are due to the failure to reform transportation throughout the 20th century and since.

The global economy loves the way the US works and consumes and spends because it gives lots of people around the world lots of ways to make money, but it's bad for the climate and it disrupts the more general historical processes of economic reform that occur naturally through time when people are under pressure to curtail spending at both the household and business levels.

An unoriginal rip-off of Calvin and Hobbes. Try again.

More exactly its a political homage. Really chafes your chaps to see Donnie Two Scoops shown for the selfish uneducated child he is by using his words and action, don't it.

It may be cartoons but it is also editorial and truthful.

Who is, and will remain, your president for 4 mores years. What have the Democrats done to help improve the lives of citizens in the last three years? Name one thing that even resembles leadership on their part. Three years of lying, whining and political blackmail all at America's expense. Your party is an anti-American hate machine. They will be soundly rejected in November.

No, that would describe the Republicans. They are insanely against immigration. Well, mainly against any immigration from countries which aren't lily-white.
America (The United States) is not meant to be that. It is supposed to be all inclusive.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lily-white

No they are not. They are against illegal immigration, chain migration and lotteries. They encourage legal immigration. You are being lied to. But you can show me an example of any kind of immigration they oppose except those three.

Should I wait?

Remains to be seen, pal.

So you're going to send your $1200 back to those dirty Democrats, right?

And we won't even mention the 400+ bills they've sent over to the Senate Moscow's Mitch is sitting on.