The Dem era of Big government and spending is over...

We need to accept the Oligarchs need more tax cuts and that has to be paid for somehow.


the-super-rich-now-control-more-of-americas-wealth-than-v0-k7me41zjxmwe1.jpeg


globalinequality2-11-6-2016.jpg


515508483_772426535447954_4982874191706982580_n.jpg


images




aoe4c3.jpg
And guess who is riding with these billionaires and refuse to address the overwhelming disparities? Piss poor redneck motherfuckers in the south on welfare disability, will ride or die to defend these greedy bastards, because someday in thier dreams a winning lottery ticket awaits they fuckin ass's.
 
If you give a pile of cash to someone who is an outcast from society, and won't be accepted by society, and who has little or no ability to utilize that money effectively, that person doesn't become a "contributor." They become a mark. They are soon separated from that cash and no better off than they were before.

Money alone doesn't lift people up. Until you fix the inequities in society and get to a point where the poor are capable of moving up, it won't happen. That takes generational effort, often many generations of effort.


China is doing stupid stuff. They have massive corruption--expected with a massive government--and what they build has more to do with politics and propaganda than sound economic reasoning. It's like California building their high speed rail line. If few use it once complete--assuming that ever even happens--and it hemorrhages money, at some point it will simply disappear from use.

Look at the BART system. Ridership is falling fast on that as remote work and cost of fares rise. It's at a point where the system is going bankrupt. Politician's solution is to raise taxes and fares more.



It hasn't created a middle class so much as a YUPPIE and oligarch class. The same thing occurs in most dictatorships.


The US built out after the civil war on personal wealth and by work and individual investment. US military spending could certainly take a reduction, but that's unlikely. The rail system in the US from 1870 to 1900 (roughly) was primarily built out using private investment, not government funding.
Right and China has not just done that. They are not just handing out cash and IT IS attached jobs and often apartments in cities, with the working poor sustenance farm class increasingly lifted up in to a lower middle class.

Read up and learn something and you will see this is not just handing out welfare checks, while keeping the people in the same position as you seem to think.

-

Yes and the US did (and still does) lots of stupid stuff during reconstruction and after. Massive corruption in the US as US government grew. It is your lack of reading and knowledge that makes you think this is a 'China only' thing.

While you can argue China is building too much too fast and there is a ton of risk in that, that was the same arguments many leveled at the US and why Europe and most of the developed world did not engage in such mass nationwide building projects and expansion. the very thing that made the US #1, was also seen as very risky at the time.

And your ignorance really shows in your last point as you try to make it sound that the MC success was just a function of 'people with personal wealth' doing 'hard work', when that existed pre industrialization and individuals could indeed get very wealthy but DID NOT build out a MC. The WAY YOU BUILD A MC is by massive gov't investments in infrastructure, connecting the country coast to coast, providing energy and utilities access coast to coast, and providing EDUCATION and HEALTH CARE coast to coast.

Those things all together are what allow masses of people to rise out of a poverty serf class, live long enough to accrue wealth and to take advantage of the opportunities in the country growing around them. It is reciprocal growth.
 
On the national debt part of your post is wrong.
Reagan almost tripled it, Bush doubled it , Here it is Obama did run it up about 8 Trillion and that was digging us out of the really deep recession / almost Depression Bush left him , and it took him 8 years to get it there , then Trump took over a recovered economy and ran the debt up ALMOST as much as Obama did and he did it in JUST FOUR YEARS , and since he got back into office he has added over 2.7 Trillion almost 3 Trillion and it has only been just over 14 months.
President Reagan increased the debt by $1.86 trillion, or by 186% ( 200% would be triple the debt )
President Bush added $5.85 trillion to the national debt. That's a 101% increase. ( 100% is double the debt )
President Obama added about $8.6 trillion, about a 74% increase ( and as I pointed out that was spent to get us out of a very deep recession / almost depression )
Trump added $6.7 trillion to the debt between fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2020, and since he got back into office Trump has added almost another 3 Trillion to the debt and that is in just 14 months and has over 2.5 years to go.
So at the rate Trump is going he will add at least another 6 Trillion before his term is over , running the debt up almost 16 Trillion himself.
 
On the national debt part of your post is wrong.
Reagan almost tripled it, Bush doubled it , Here it is Obama did run it up about 8 Trillion and that was digging us out of the really deep recession / almost Depression Bush left him , and it took him 8 years to get it there , then Trump took over a recovered economy and ran the debt up ALMOST as much as Obama did and he did it in JUST FOUR YEARS , and since he got back into office he has added over 2.7 Trillion almost 3 Trillion and it has only been just over 14 months.
President Reagan increased the debt by $1.86 trillion, or by 186% ( 200% would be triple the debt )
President Bush added $5.85 trillion to the national debt. That's a 101% increase. ( 100% is double the debt )
President Obama added about $8.6 trillion, about a 74% increase ( and as I pointed out that was spent to get us out of a very deep recession / almost depression )
Trump added $6.7 trillion to the debt between fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2020, and since he got back into office Trump has added almost another 3 Trillion to the debt and that is in just 14 months and has over 2.5 years to go.
So at the rate Trump is going he will add at least another 6 Trillion before his term is over , running the debt up almost 16 Trillion himself.

Yup.

Obama did it in exactly the way it is meant to be done. The reason you are supposed to be responsible and run balance budgets or surpluses during good years (clinton) is so that if the next Potus takes over during really bad years, he can use debt and lower interest rates to stimulate the economy and pull us out.

People hate comparing gov;t to managing a home but it is the same in that very basic way. When you are in your prime good earnings years you do not want to push debt to crippling levels and then if you have a period of lesser income you can lean on that, if you need to.

But Republicans NEVER want to hand the Dems a well managed healthy economy as then the citizens would support some increased social spending. It is because of Trumps wild spending and addition to the debt the Republicans will scream at the next Dem gov't 'we are broke, have too much debt and cannot afford that...', and the only reason it will resonate with many citizens is because Trump will leave America in deep debt and trouble.
 
Right and China has not just done that. They are not just handing out cash and IT IS attached jobs and often apartments in cities, with the working poor sustenance farm class increasingly lifted up in to a lower middle class.

Read up and learn something and you will see this is not just handing out welfare checks, while keeping the people in the same position as you seem to think.

-

Yes and the US did (and still does) lots of stupid stuff during reconstruction and after. Massive corruption in the US as US government grew. It is your lack of reading and knowledge that makes you think this is a 'China only' thing.

While you can argue China is building too much too fast and there is a ton of risk in that, that was the same arguments many leveled at the US and why Europe and most of the developed world did not engage in such mass nationwide building projects and expansion. the very thing that made the US #1, was also seen as very risky at the time.

And your ignorance really shows in your last point as you try to make it sound that the MC success was just a function of 'people with personal wealth' doing 'hard work', when that existed pre industrialization and individuals could indeed get very wealthy but DID NOT build out a MC. The WAY YOU BUILD A MC is by massive gov't investments in infrastructure, connecting the country coast to coast, providing energy and utilities access coast to coast, and providing EDUCATION and HEALTH CARE coast to coast.

Those things all together are what allow masses of people to rise out of a poverty serf class, live long enough to accrue wealth and to take advantage of the opportunities in the country growing around them. It is reciprocal growth.
Building 'Potemkin villages' is something dictatorships do. China has massive numbers of empty high-rise apartments nobody will rent. Empty glamorous shopping malls nobody shops in. Your ignorance of what China is really like is total.

Their high speed rail system is nearly a trillion USD in debt. That's not getting paid off.

When the US industrialized and expanded post Civil War, it was done almost entirely on private money. The US federal government was minimal.

The way you build a truly strong economy is by NOT having a massive, invasive, overbearing government that decides what gets done and hands out the money to whom they pick to get it done. Those economies end up with massive corruption and oligarchs running the economy.
 
Yup.

Obama did it in exactly the way it is meant to be done. The reason you are supposed to be responsible and run balance budgets or surpluses during good years (clinton) is so that if the next Potus takes over during really bad years, he can use debt and lower interest rates to stimulate the economy and pull us out.

People hate comparing gov;t to managing a home but it is the same in that very basic way. When you are in your prime good earnings years you do not want to push debt to crippling levels and then if you have a period of lesser income you can lean on that, if you need to.

But Republicans NEVER want to hand the Dems a well managed healthy economy as then the citizens would support some increased social spending. It is because of Trumps wild spending and addition to the debt the Republicans will scream at the next Dem gov't 'we are broke, have too much debt and cannot afford that...', and the only reason it will resonate with many citizens is because Trump will leave America in deep debt and trouble.
Well it is a FACT that the Dems run the economy better then the Republicans,
Of the last 11 Recessions 10 of them started under a Republican President. and it looks like Trump is going to make it 11 out of the last 12.
The republicans run the economy into the ditch and we have to elect a DEM to get us back out. and that has been happening for years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
Building 'Potemkin villages' is something dictatorships do. China has massive numbers of empty high-rise apartments nobody will rent. Empty glamorous shopping malls nobody shops in. Your ignorance of what China is really like is total.

Their high speed rail system is nearly a trillion USD in debt. That's not getting paid off.

When the US industrialized and expanded post Civil War, it was done almost entirely on private money. The US federal government was minimal.

The way you build a truly strong economy is by NOT having a massive, invasive, overbearing government that decides what gets done and hands out the money to whom they pick to get it done. Those economies end up with massive corruption and oligarchs running the economy.
I know all that plus i know about entire ghost cities in China and never said anything different. SO it is your ignorance on what i know and what is heppening in CHina that is total.

That DOES NOT change the FACT that China is not just handing out welfare checks as you think to create a middle class and it is tied to real jobs and real builds out that DO provide societal payback creating NECESSARY infrastructure to spur further growth in CHina.

As i said, can you argue there is big bubble risk, sure. just as many said during the US biggest build out years. But what you are wrong to say (as you did) is that this is just welfare. It is INVESTMENTS and whether those investments end up working or not will be a story told by the future. I know that will not stop you pretending you can proclaim TODAY whether it will pay off or not, as you are just stupid enough to do that.

And no, you can repeat that lie over and over and it won't make it true. The US national buildout of infrastructure and education and health care was not funded by 'rich business men doing good business' as you would like to spin the lie as it was the time of the GREATEST growth in the Federal gov't, post reconstruction tied to some of the most PROGRESSIVE taxation that redistributed money into the things (infrastructure, health care, education) that benefit and uplift the working poor into the working class more.

There have been very rich barons or industrialists in every era and yet the MC did not form or grow and often you ended up with Rich and Serfs only. So the myth you want to spin that 'rich people getting richer created the MC' is just false. It required AGGRESSIVE gov't redistribution, which ironically helped the rich get even richer, as Henry Ford forecast it would.
 
Well it is a FACT that the Dems run the economy better then the Republicans,
Of the last 11 Recessions 10 of them started under a Republican President. and it looks like Trump is going to make it 11 out of the last 12.
The republicans run the economy into the ditch and we have to elect a DEM to get us back out. and that has been happening for years.
Yup.

And i only realized in the last decade or so that, that is by design.

The Republicans recognized a few things:

- the gov't who inherits a healthy economy and says 'we are in a position to tighten the belt and pay down debt' rarely gets any credit. It is like having a parent say, 'we are going to live off $0.70 of every dollar we earn while paying down debt and putting away some for future savings'. You actually feel poorer while going thru it spending only $0.70 of every dollar earned. Conversely the parent who says 'i just got a raise which expanded my credit so we will fund some big vacations and purchases with credit' can make the family feel rich. They are spending $1.30 for every dollar they earn.

So that is why Trump and Repubicans ramp up debt and spending during good times.

- Also if Republicans hand over a good shape, healthy budget govt and the Dems say 'we have money to expand social services' then the populace will be ok with that more

The Republicans never want to hand over that power, so they always want to hand over a economy the Dems must spend years trying to fix.
 
Americans do not understand the situation in China, yet they like to use China as an example to argue what policies the United States should adopt. The issue with real estate has never been about building too many houses, but rather that housing retains value too well and is treated by society as a kind of financial product—used to store and generate new wealth. This has resulted in only the wealthy being able to afford homes, and the rich becoming even richer by buying houses. That is the root of the problem. As for the so-called "ghost cities" you mention, they are actually just some poorly selling developments, nowhere near the scale of actual cities.
 
Americans do not understand the situation in China, yet they like to use China as an example to argue what policies the United States should adopt. The issue with real estate has never been about building too many houses, but rather that housing retains value too well and is treated by society as a kind of financial product—used to store and generate new wealth. This has resulted in only the wealthy being able to afford homes, and the rich becoming even richer by buying houses. That is the root of the problem. As for the so-called "ghost cities" you mention, they are actually just some poorly selling developments, nowhere near the scale of actual cities.
I have not seen people arguing the US needs to adopt chinese policies. WHere are you seeing that?

I largely agree with you on housing which has become the primary store of wealth for the upper MC leading to govts doing everything to slow new supply coming on line which would reduce cost for young buyers but also reduce that wealth of the older voters.

Ghost cities in China are very real, very modern and often just over built on the old supply belief of 'if we build it... they will come', as the developers did not recognize any signs of a bubble and just keep assuming the steady uptick fof the growing MC would fill them.

I invite you to read up on Ordos (Kangbashi) and Tianducheng cities, just to name two.
 
I have not seen people arguing the US needs to adopt chinese policies. WHere are you seeing that?

I largely agree with you on housing which has become the primary store of wealth for the upper MC leading to govts doing everything to slow new supply coming on line which would reduce cost for young buyers but also reduce that wealth of the older voters.

Ghost cities in China are very real, very modern and often just over built on the old supply belief of 'if we build it... they will come', as the developers did not recognize any signs of a bubble and just keep assuming the steady uptick fof the growing MC would fill them.

I invite you to read up on Ordos (Kangbashi) and Tianducheng cities, just to name two.
You need to understand that China is a vast country. There are countless cities here. Some are very old and crowded; others are quite new with very few people. The city you mentioned, Ordos, is one of the wealthiest regions in the country due to its coal resources. Reports indicate that its per capita income is higher than that of Shanghai and Beijing. This is a special case. Not every city can arbitrarily build new urban districts. In fact, many cities hope to secure more funding because a large number of buildings date back to around 1980. The houses built during that impoverished era are technically not suitable for long-term preservation. What I mean is that even today, China still has a massive need for housing renovation. What Western media can do is to go to remote areas, find some poorly selling construction projects or newly developed districts with few residents, and then claim that this is a common phenomenon. In reality, it is not.
 
I have not seen people arguing the US needs to adopt chinese policies. WHere are you seeing that?

I largely agree with you on housing which has become the primary store of wealth for the upper MC leading to govts doing everything to slow new supply coming on line which would reduce cost for young buyers but also reduce that wealth of the older voters.

Ghost cities in China are very real, very modern and often just over built on the old supply belief of 'if we build it... they will come', as the developers did not recognize any signs of a bubble and just keep assuming the steady uptick fof the growing MC would fill them.

I invite you to read up on Ordos (Kangbashi) and Tianducheng cities, just to name two.
我本人就住在中国北方地区,实际上这里并没有什么鬼城。在郊外,(或者说城乡结合部——城市的边缘),当然你可以找到一些没什么人住的楼盘。但相比于巨大的城市,这只是很小一部分而已。远远算不上什么鬼城。如果你把鬼城当作某种普遍现象,那说明你对中国没什么感知。
 
I have not seen people arguing the US needs to adopt chinese policies. WHere are you seeing that?

I largely agree with you on housing which has become the primary store of wealth for the upper MC leading to govts doing everything to slow new supply coming on line which would reduce cost for young buyers but also reduce that wealth of the older voters.

Ghost cities in China are very real, very modern and often just over built on the old supply belief of 'if we build it... they will come', as the developers did not recognize any signs of a bubble and just keep assuming the steady uptick fof the growing MC would fill them.

I invite you to read up on Ordos (Kangbashi) and Tianducheng cities, just to name two.
Do you know where your American understanding of this issue falls short? You imagine the government as some alien entity that can operate completely independently of society as a whole. In reality, banks, governments, and commercial real estate companies are all intertwined—they are sometimes in competition, sometimes share common interests, and sometimes have hierarchical relationships. Things are complex, and you Americans often refuse to acknowledge that complexity. We Chinese, because we live in this country, can for the most part understand this complexity.
 
Do you know where your American understanding of this issue falls short? You imagine the government as some alien entity that can operate completely independently of society as a whole. In reality, banks, governments, and commercial real estate companies are all intertwined—they are sometimes in competition, sometimes share common interests, and sometimes have hierarchical relationships. Things are complex, and you Americans often refuse to acknowledge that complexity. We Chinese, because we live in this country, can for the most part understand this complexity.
You do not understand much of anything based on what i am seeing. For instance quote me saying a single thing that substantiates this...

"... You imagine the government as some alien entity that can operate completely independently of society as a whole...."

Because i have never said or suggested any such thing and in fact i think this ...

"... In reality, banks, governments, and commercial real estate companies are all intertwined—they are sometimes in competition, sometimes share common interests, and sometimes have hierarchical relationships..." is very accurate.
 
You do not understand much of anything based on what i am seeing. For instance quote me saying a single thing that substantiates this...

"... You imagine the government as some alien entity that can operate completely independently of society as a whole...."

Because i have never said or suggested any such thing and in fact i think this ...

"... In reality, banks, governments, and commercial real estate companies are all intertwined—they are sometimes in competition, sometimes share common interests, and sometimes have hierarchical relationships..." is very accurate.
I think this is due to some imprecise translations. What I meant refers to the general, widespread thoughts of American people. This is not directed at your personal thoughts. In fact, I used some translation software. Although I often read English, I rarely write in English, so using translation software is an easier approach. Sometimes this leads to a few mistakes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
I think this is due to some imprecise translations. What I meant refers to the general, widespread thoughts of American people. This is not directed at your personal thoughts. In fact, I used some translation software. Although I often read English, I rarely write in English, so using translation software is an easier approach. Sometimes this leads to a few mistakes.
Fair enough. I am not sure we disagree a lot.

I am not claiming the issue is widespread in CHina. Just as i would argue there are areas of 'bubble risk' within the US economy, especially in areas of the stock market, i would say the same exists in areas within China.
 
Fair enough. I am not sure we disagree a lot.

I am not claiming the issue is widespread in CHina. Just as i would argue there are areas of 'bubble risk' within the US economy, especially in areas of the stock market, i would say the same exists in areas within China.
You're right. Of course the bubble exists. It's just that this bubble has been skillfully misrepresented by Western media in their portrayal of China—much like the notorious The Economist often does. I don't blame any ordinary American who has formed the wrong impression on such issues. Given the information provided by Western media, that's about the best understanding of China that people can have.
 
On the national debt part of your post is wrong.
Reagan almost tripled it, Bush doubled it , Here it is Obama did run it up about 8 Trillion and that was digging us out of the really deep recession / almost Depression Bush left him , and it took him 8 years to get it there , then Trump took over a recovered economy and ran the debt up ALMOST as much as Obama did and he did it in JUST FOUR YEARS , and since he got back into office he has added over 2.7 Trillion almost 3 Trillion and it has only been just over 14 months.
President Reagan increased the debt by $1.86 trillion, or by 186% ( 200% would be triple the debt )
President Bush added $5.85 trillion to the national debt. That's a 101% increase. ( 100% is double the debt )
President Obama added about $8.6 trillion, about a 74% increase ( and as I pointed out that was spent to get us out of a very deep recession / almost depression )
Trump added $6.7 trillion to the debt between fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2020, and since he got back into office Trump has added almost another 3 Trillion to the debt and that is in just 14 months and has over 2.5 years to go.
So at the rate Trump is going he will add at least another 6 Trillion before his term is over , running the debt up almost 16 Trillion himself.
Both Obama and Biden like most Democrats who win elections after Republicans inherit nothing but GOP debt. Obama inherited bank failures and a mortgage crisis equal to the great depression of 1939 and Biden came in under the worst pandemic since 1919, both required an increase in spending. And no disrespect to the room, the Tiger is never and I mean never ever wrong, so put some respect on my comments, dude.
 
Both Obama and Biden like most Democrats who win elections after Republicans inherit nothing but GOP debt. Obama inherited bank failures and a mortgage crisis equal to the great depression of 1939 and Biden came in under the worst pandemic since 1919, both required an increase in spending. And no disrespect to the room, the Tiger is never and I mean never ever wrong, so put some respect on my comments, dude.
Why wouldn't I respect your post?
I agree with it 100%
Republicans run the economy into the ground and the Dems have to come back in and get it back on track again.
And they have been doing it for years.
 
what do Magats have to say about this?

They say '... another promise made... another promise kept by Trump who promised us a massive, expansive Military investment as the US goes on to Police the world and remove 'bad people', while cutting help for citizens at home...'

anbp02.gif


amhqxq.jpg


aleuhv.jpg


amg2dc.jpg


alh3zd.jpg


ilovethepoorlyeducated.gif
I'm against.

yes. maga has become a farce.

it's a dead movement.

trump is a full on fuckface neocon lie sack.

who's still correct on tariffs and immigration.
 
Back
Top