Trump’s Rust Belt voters bail as his Ohio rally plays to empty seats: 'I fell for it'

zymurgy said:
You spend half your post calling people stupid and uninformed, then proudly announce that you vote straight Democrat regardless of the candidate.

And that's precisely the problem. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party is economically illiterate, yet its policies get a free pass from voters who care more about the letter beside a candidate's name than the economic consequences of their ideas.

But tell me more about low-information voters.
Click to expand...
Low information voters are the ones who think republicans are more "economically literate" when they have proven so completely inept for decades now.

Obama righted the ship after BushJr, and handed it to Trump in great shape. Trump then handed it to Biden in the crapper who had all things moving in the right way as he handed it back to Trump. Trump is now setting to hand it off at BushJr levels to the next POTUS and heaven help us if it is another Republican as then America will go into a Depression. A Bill Clinton will be needed to bail America out after this Trump term.
 
Valentino said:
Wow... is that true or just a shot of the stand before the crowd got there?
Click to expand...
lots of empty sections as they try to pile people in behind where Trump is speaking to try and make it seem full, as per the norm these days for most of his rallies.

b3e2li.jpg
 
CasualLurker said:
Many nations in the world have excellently succeeded with having a far more comprehensive public sector and more regulated private sector that ours. Globally, quality of life is considered better in those nations than ours.
Click to expand...
That's a cop-out. Name the countries.

I'm assuming you're referring to Norway and the Nordic model.

Funny how people who champion that model rarely mention what actually pays for it.

Norway taxes its working and middle classes far more heavily than we do, imposes a 25% VAT on most purchases, and has accumulated enormous petroleum wealth in a sovereign investment fund.

And perhaps most importantly, Norway exercises fiscal discipline through rules limiting how much of that fund it can spend over time.

That's quite a contrast to American progressives who routinely advocate expanding government programs through additional deficit spending.

Norway also happens to have a thriving capitalist economy, which makes it an especially strange example for someone who just argued that capitalism should be limited to consumer goods and services.

So let's get specific. Which aspects of Norway's model are you advocating? The higher middle-class taxes? The consumption taxes? The fiscal restraint? Or just the benefits?

Because admiring the benefits while ignoring how they're financed isn't an economic philosophy. It's wishful thinking.
 
QP! said:
Low information voters are the ones who think republicans are more "economically literate" when they have proven so completely inept for decades now.

Obama righted the ship after BushJr, and handed it to Trump in great shape. Trump then handed it to Biden in the crapper who had all things moving in the right way as he handed it back to Trump. Trump is now setting to hand it off at BushJr levels to the next POTUS and heaven help us if it is another Republican as then America will go into a Depression. A Bill Clinton will be needed to bail America out after this Trump term.
Click to expand...
QP! said:
Low information voters are the ones who think republicans are more "economically literate" when they have proven so completely inept for decades now.

Obama righted the ship after BushJr, and handed it to Trump in great shape. Trump then handed it to Biden in the crapper who had all things moving in the right way as he handed it back to Trump. Trump is now setting to hand it off at BushJr levels to the next POTUS and heaven help us if it is another Republican as then America will go into a Depression. A Bill Clinton will be needed to bail America out after this Trump term.
Click to expand...
Well as I have pointed out several times 10 out of the last 11 Recessions , and the one under Bush was almost a depression, were started under Republican Presidents, and every time they put us in one we elected a DEM and they got us out of it.
So if you need to slow the economy down elect a Republican if you want a growing booming economy elect a Dem.
 
Tbird19482 said:
Well as I have pointed out several times 10 out of the last 11 Recessions , and the one under Bush was almost a depression, were started under Republican Presidents, and every time they put us in one we elected a DEM and they got us out of it.
So if you need to slow the economy down elect a Republican if you want a growing booming economy elect a Dem.
Click to expand...
Republicans do it purposely.

They know if they hand over a strong booming economy as Clinton or Obama did but to a Dem, then Dems will be able to push thru big programs to help the people and cries of 'we can't afford it... what about the debt.,..' won't scare citizens enough, as times are good and they are not focused on gov't.

Republicans, for that reason NEVER want to hand a good economy, going the right way, to Dems.

it is because Trump will hand it over broken (likely in BushJr level crisis) that they will be able to scream 'we cannot afford anything... Dems must pay down debt', and citizens listen. They will ignore it was then who AGAIN broke it but just keep screaming what needs to be done to fix it.
 
zymurgy said:
That's a cop-out. Name the countries.

I'm assuming you're referring to Norway and the Nordic model.

Funny how people who champion that model rarely mention what actually pays for it.

Norway taxes its working and middle classes far more heavily than we do, imposes a 25% VAT on most purchases, and has accumulated enormous petroleum wealth in a sovereign investment fund.

And perhaps most importantly, Norway exercises fiscal discipline through rules limiting how much of that fund it can spend over time.

That's quite a contrast to American progressives who routinely advocate expanding government programs through additional deficit spending.

Norway also happens to have a thriving capitalist economy, which makes it an especially strange example for someone who just argued that capitalism should be limited to consumer goods and services.

So let's get specific. Which aspects of Norway's model are you advocating? The higher middle-class taxes? The consumption taxes? The fiscal restraint? Or just the benefits?

Because admiring the benefits while ignoring how they're financed isn't an economic philosophy. It's wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
Aggressive taxation is the requisite for an adequately comprehensive public sector and an adequately regulated private sector. It's conservatives who complain about taxes, not liberals. Progressive income tax with the burdens properly proportioned between the income levels is what truly progressive, civilized nations do. I would cite The Netherlands as well as Nordic nations.
 
CasualLurker said:
Aggressive taxation is the requisite for an adequately comprehensive public sector and an adequately regulated private sector. It's conservatives who complain about taxes, not liberals. Progressive income tax with the burdens properly proportioned between the income levels is what truly progressive, civilized nations do. I would cite The Netherlands as well as Nordic nations.
Click to expand...
You're still missing the fundamental argument. You keep explaining how to collect more taxes. I'm questioning the lack of meaningful checks on government spending.

And the irony of invoking the Nordic model is remarkable.

Sweden has statutory spending ceilings, a debt anchor, and a balanced-budget target. Denmark limits structural deficits. Norway has strict fiscal guidelines governing its sovereign wealth fund.

These countries recognize something American progressives routinely gloss over: a generous public sector requires fiscal discipline, not a blank check.

The Nordic model isn't built around perpetual deficit spending. It imposes fiscal restraints that our political system routinely fails to enforce.

You want to import their spending programs while conveniently ignoring the fiscal discipline that makes them sustainable.

That's not the Nordic model. That's cherry-picking the benefits while ignoring the responsibilities.
 
zymurgy said:
I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Wealthy people own media companies, therefore the media can't have a left-wing political bias?

Let's look at something measurable.

In 2016, among the 100 largest American newspapers, 57 endorsed Hillary Clinton. Just TWO endorsed Donald Trump. Even newspapers with decades of Republican endorsements abandoned their tradition to support Clinton.

Does that sound like a media establishment overwhelmingly sympathetic to Republicans?

And the negative coverage numbers during the general election weren't exactly balanced either.

You can argue that Trump deserved the criticism. That's a different discussion. But pretending corporate ownership somehow disproves political bias is absurd.

My point remains: a political party that enjoys sympathetic media coverage and unconditional loyalty from its voters faces fewer incentives for accountability.

That's not good for either party, or the country.
Click to expand...
You are assuming they did not make a fair evaluation. Picking Hillary was easy over Trump. But you avoid the point entirely. There are lots of stations. like Fox Gnus, Newsmax, Salem News, Daily Wire, Breitbart, The Federalist, Babylon Bee, Epoch Times and many others that are all Trump and far ]right all day, The wealthy bought up the radio stations, and as you drive you have station after station broadcasting far-right talk shows. They bought newspapers across the nation and control the news in many cities and towns at the same time.
 
CasualLurker said:
I'm very nervous about the mid-terms. The Republicans should get totally steamrolled, but I doubt that they will.
America is devastatingly cursed by the insanity of so much of its population. Democratic-leaning journalists are always way to optimistic.
Click to expand...
Because republicans cheat in elections


We have to flood their shit with real votes


Everyone needs to vote
 
zymurgy said:
You're still missing the fundamental argument. You keep explaining how to collect more taxes. I'm questioning the lack of meaningful checks on government spending.

And the irony of invoking the Nordic model is remarkable.

Sweden has statutory spending ceilings, a debt anchor, and a balanced-budget target. Denmark limits structural deficits. Norway has strict fiscal guidelines governing its sovereign wealth fund.

These countries recognize something American progressives routinely gloss over: a generous public sector requires fiscal discipline, not a blank check.

The Nordic model isn't built around perpetual deficit spending. It imposes fiscal restraints that our political system routinely fails to enforce.

You want to import their spending programs while conveniently ignoring the fiscal discipline that makes them sustainable.

That's not the Nordic model. That's cherry-picking the benefits while ignoring the responsibilities.
Click to expand...
What tax rates are their wealthiest paying?
 
Norway levies a net wealth tax.


The corporate rate varies from 20 to 25 percent


Recently it was much higher

After they built needed infrastructure it was lowered
 
Nordic countries are well recognized for combining healthy economic growth with strong social and environmental policies. Since 2000, the Nordic economies grew 28%, while carbon dioxide emissions fell by 18%. Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden aim to be carbon neutral by 2050, driven by investments in renewable energy, bioenergy, and carbon offsets. Denmark recently made achieving “net zero by 2050” a legal responsibility. What is their secret?

One of the keys to Nordic success was their pioneering use of energy taxation in the early 1990s when faced with a recession caused by a major banking crisis arising from excessive financial deregulation, exacerbated by low oil prices in the late 1980s (for Norway) and the collapse of the Soviet Union (for Finland). While the conditions of the 1990s recession were different from today, the Nordics have shown how to use energy taxation to recover from an economic crisis.
 
zymurgy said:
You're still missing the fundamental argument. You keep explaining how to collect more taxes. I'm questioning the lack of meaningful checks on government spending.

And the irony of invoking the Nordic model is remarkable.

Sweden has statutory spending ceilings, a debt anchor, and a balanced-budget target. Denmark limits structural deficits. Norway has strict fiscal guidelines governing its sovereign wealth fund.

These countries recognize something American progressives routinely gloss over: a generous public sector requires fiscal discipline, not a blank check.

The Nordic model isn't built around perpetual deficit spending. It imposes fiscal restraints that our political system routinely fails to enforce.

You want to import their spending programs while conveniently ignoring the fiscal discipline that makes them sustainable.

That's not the Nordic model. That's cherry-picking the benefits while ignoring the responsibilities.
Click to expand...
zymurgy said:
You're still missing the fundamental argument. You keep explaining how to collect more taxes. I'm questioning the lack of meaningful checks on government spending.

And the irony of invoking the Nordic model is remarkable.

Sweden has statutory spending ceilings, a debt anchor, and a balanced-budget target. Denmark limits structural deficits. Norway has strict fiscal guidelines governing its sovereign wealth fund.

These countries recognize something American progressives routinely gloss over: a generous public sector requires fiscal discipline, not a blank check.

The Nordic model isn't built around perpetual deficit spending. It imposes fiscal restraints that our political system routinely fails to enforce.

You want to import their spending programs while conveniently ignoring the fiscal discipline that makes them sustainable.

That's not the Nordic model. That's cherry-picking the benefits while ignoring the responsibilities.
Click to expand...
You don’t know what you are talking about
 
zymurgy said:
I'm questioning the lack of meaningful checks on government spending.
Click to expand...
That's the electorate's responsibility at the polls. Choosing the candidate of a party that doesn't agree with one's opinion of the function of government won't accomplish that. That decreases spending at the expense of essential social requirements. Our biggest disagreement is on what is essential. America is shamefully socially regressive by global standards.
 
CasualLurker said:
That's the electorate's responsibility at the polls. Choosing the candidate of a party that doesn't agree with one's opinion of the function of government won't accomplish that. That decreases spending at the expense of essential social requirements. Our biggest disagreement is on what is essential. America is shamefully socially regressive by global standards.
Click to expand...
So your solution is to expect voters to reject politicians promising them more government benefits?

That's like expecting a crack addict to turn down free crack.

Politicians promise benefits, voters reward them, and the bill gets passed to future generations who aren't even part of the electorate making those decisions.

This is precisely why we need structural checks on government spending rather than relying on voters to exercise fiscal restraint.

You're confusing electoral accountability with fiscal responsibility. And frankly, that distinction seems completely lost on the progressive fiscal illiterates defending this system.

The Nordic countries figured out that generous government programs require enforceable fiscal discipline, not perpetual deficit spending.

The irony is that your argument demonstrates the very problem I'm describing.
 
zymurgy said:
The Nordic countries figured out that generous government programs require enforceable fiscal discipline, not perpetual deficit spending.
Click to expand...
You assume that deficit spending is caused only by overspending and not by undertaxing.
I strongly disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top