I was working on a different hub and in the process developed the following statistics about GDP growth throughout American history. Since George Washington, whose economic philosophy somewhat resembled those of today's liberals, there have been:
- 10 periods where administrations who favored the kind of economic theory which thinks a federal reserve (a surrogate for a liberal economic philosophy) is a good thing
- 10 periods where a federal reserve was a dirty word (not counting Trump)
- 1 long period where they were uncertain
- The period where George Washington and John Adams were president
* In the in-between period (1800 - 1828) GDP growth was 3.47%
* George Washington and John Adams managed to produce a 6.08% growth
* Averaging the growths for the 10 "liberal" periods, we get 4.17%
* Averaging the growths for the 10 "conservative" periods, we get 3.13%
While those two rates look close, they are statistically speaking very far apart.
Trump base most everything on the economy, and people unbalance ally choose to over focus on it too.
It's a CRIME: Mr. Trump's Corporate Welfare Tax Cut Scheme enabled by his republican accomplices did exactly what every expert expected and predicted because the same wealth transfer scam to Wall Street was perpetrated in the past, it made his elite friends wealthier while workers get poorer, exploded our debt to the point where we need to borrow even more from our enemies like China, and is corroding President Obama's once great economy: It must be REPEALED ASAP:
"Trump's Tax Cuts Didn't Benefit U.S. Workers, Made Rich Companies Richer, Analysis Finds"
http://www.newsweek.com/republican-tax- … ses-879800
Yep, exactly what every thinking person said before they passed the #GOPTaxScam.
Has anybody noticed the DOW has declined 10% since January? I'll bet that is because investors realized demand won't grow as a result of the #GOPTaxScam; only corporate pocketbooks from larger dividends, stock buy-backs, and simply pocketing what would have been taxes to pay for America's infrastructure or reduce the debt. Only a few workers got those bonuses you heard about right after the Act passed.
Jake, that is nonsensical.
For one, the national debt practically tripled under the Obama Administration and Trump had nothing to do with that.
Second, its basic math. America went from worst corporate tax rate 35% to middle-of-the-pack 21% which is better than Mexico for instance by 9%.
What this means, is that for large corporations it makes much more sense to remain in America, or move back to America, to produce their goods here. Of course there is a great deal more that goes into all of this, what infrastructure is available, how stable is the political situation of a nation, what are the costs of power, hourly wages, etc.
Trump has strong armed companies into remaining here in America, and the tax change makes it viable for them to do so. That in turn has them hiring more Americans, putting more people to work, allowing wages to rise as there are fewer people available to choose from for those jobs, all of this will lead to a stronger economy, here in America. Countries like Mexico and China will suffer because of it, this is the way it works, all economies and all nations cannot grow equally, they are in competition for those jobs/companies.
You forgot to mention, Ken, that the entire debt is a result of President Obama being left with the worst economic mess since FDR became president and being forced to save America (and therefore the world) from an unprecedented disaster. To listen to you castigate him for it tells me you wish America had crashed and burned. Why is that so?
You also fail to mention that 1) most corporations had an EFFECTIVE tax rate of around 22% and 2) corporations ARE NOT, with only a very few exceptions, planning on taking the windfall and investing it in America. They ARE NOT planning on growing jobs. Instead, what most are doing are increasing dividends and buying back their own stocks with the sole purpose of increase stock prices and filling their own pockets. Why aren't you writing about that?
What companies, other than the first few, has strong-armed into staying. Seems to me many are moving some of their production outside the US - and that was before these terrible tariffs are forcing them out.
Fortunately Trumpland is going to suffer quite a bit before the mid-terms.
You forget to mention as well that Obama's hiring numbers far outstrip what Trump has accomplished. Why?
Mexico and China are forming or have formed multinational trade alliances which will more than make up from any harm they may receive from Trump tariffs. You forget it isn't just Mexico and China who Trump is going to war with. It is every country that has a trade surplus with the U.S. Trump has started a trade war with the world and he can't win it.
"You forgot to mention, Ken, that the entire debt is a result of President Obama being left with the worst economic mess since FDR became president and being forced to save America (and therefore the world) from an unprecedented disaster. To listen to you castigate him for it tells me you wish America had crashed and burned. Why is that so?"
Lets try some honesty here, Obama didn't save anything, the Wall St. crooks came in, told Congress and Obama to bail out the banks (at taxpayer expense) or else the 'to big to fail' banks would bring down the entire global economy.
Obama was not a wizened, veteran politician or economist, he was a rookie Senator with great oratory skills and charm. He used up his political capital getting the ACA act passed, spent his first four years blaming Bush for the economy, but made no changes of substance that ever helped the economy go from stagnant to stellar.
The economy is turning for the better merely on Trump's bluster and bravado with businesses at first, then the passing of the new tax laws, and now with his trade wars.
America will WIN all those trade wars because we are in a situation where we can't lose. China either denies American products into China, or it taxes them at 45%... we have a 375-500 billion dollar a year deficit with them, how is it that it can get any worse for American interests or jobs?
You can go down the road with all these countries, Germany, Mexico, Canada, all the benefits in tariffs or taxation were in their favor, America was already losing to them, so its not possible for it to get worse unless those nations want to ruin their own economies trying to keep the playing field uneven.
Going back to why companies will be more inclined to stay, or return to the U.S. … the taxation was one, the tariffs will be another, and the fact that Trump threatened to hit any company leaving with a 25% tax/tariff is yet another... this nationalism will hurt countries like China and Germany, but American workers will benefit from it, the economy will benefit from it... only certain international corporations, and their profits, will be hurt.
So long as it doesn't go too far, it will be a good thing for Americans. Obviously an all out trade war where China is completely cut off could be devastating to the global economy, but I don't see that happening.
Tariffs are a poor economic strategy and only cause the consumer to pay more. Of course Democrats are only against it because Trump is for it.
Ken - When you say "Lets try some honesty here, Obama didn't save anything," you are simply and demonstrably wrong. The big banks didn't ask for anything from the gov't because of the strings it was supposed to come with. Bush created TARP, conservatives removed the strings he wanted, and Obama implemented it. Those are the facts. I doubt you can find any economists anymore, even ones opposed to it at first, that says the stimulus was absolutely necessary. If fact many say the being so skinny is one of the reasons the recovery was so slow.
The economy is doing no better under Trump than it did under Obama, in fact Obama even had a couple of quarters that grew at 4%, something Trump hasn't come close to. The gains the stock market made on his so-called bluster are ALL GONE. Why?
Trump's farmer base are screaming bloody murder because Trump's tariffs are killing them (well, to be fair, it is the retaliation that is killing them.)
How can America win a war against the WHOLE world? That is nonsensical. We have no friends left to help us; like everybody else in his life, Trump has chased them away. On the other hand, all of the other countries have formed alliances without the US on which they CAN and will rely on for support.
It would help if you took a few economic classes to learn that trade imbalances are neither bad nor good in normal circumstances. Trump incorrectly and stupidly thinks they are only bad. They aren't, not even close.
I have a strong feeling this last jobs report has hit a high point and will slide from here. We'll find out in 30 days. Some think that this quarters earnings reports are going to reflect the first signs of his tariffs negative impact. Personally, I don't think so, but next quarter certainly will.
"The gains the stock market made on his so-called bluster are ALL GONE."
How about looking up the Dow on the day of the election and post it. Then post the last figure that the market produced.
With that done explain how the big increase is ALL GONE when the market today is so much higher than it was when he was elected.
**" Bush created TARP, conservatives removed the strings he wanted, and Obama implemented it. Those are the facts. "
Obama was not a businessman. Had no experience in banking. He was a young freshman Senator that became President, the only impact he had on that bailout and the 'salvation' of the economy was signing his name to the papers they put in front of him.
**"The economy is doing no better under Trump than it did under Obama, in fact Obama even had a couple of quarters that grew at 4%, something Trump hasn't come close to. "
Those 4% growth quarters they went and re-adjusted a couple months after they made headlines, the real/official number ended up being 2.8% after adjustments.
Barack Obama was The Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Growth.
**"The gains the stock market made on his so-called bluster are ALL GONE. Why?"
I dabble in stocks a bit, I can assure you the gains since he came into office have not come close to returning back to where they were before he was elected. Unfortunately, it is still over inflated, with no end in sight.
**"How can America win a war against the WHOLE world? That is nonsensical. We have no friends left to help us; like everybody else in his life, Trump has chased them away. "
Who did we chase away exactly?
China? They have been KILLING America's industry, we have no tariffs on their products, but they tariff and tax American products at 45%. We have been losing the war with them for more than a quarter century, it can't get any worse than a 500 Billion dollar deficit.
China NEEDS America far more than America needs China, its that simple.
Same for Germany, Mexico, and Canada. If they don't like the new rules Trump is putting in place, demanding a level playing field, it will be their economies that suffer, not ours. And that will be proven out, come 2020 anyone that said otherwise will be looking foolish.
**"It would help if you took a few economic classes to learn that trade imbalances are neither bad nor good in normal circumstances."
I've taken one or two, but I'll try to enrich my base of knowledge so that one day I may attain you level of comprehension.
Ken - since you are so clearly wrong with "Barack Obama was The Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Growth. " why should anyone believe anything else you say.
Obama beat 3% in 8 different quarters. Of those he beat 4% three times and of those, he beat 5% once. So far, Trump, who claims that he has created the best economy in history, squeaked above 3% twice. Specifically, he has 1.2%; 3.1%; 3.2%; 2.9%; and 2%. The 2nd quarter of 2018 looks to be approaching 3% again.
Your numbers prompted me to take a look too, My Esoteric.
I think I found the charts with the numbers you quoted, but the same site also had stats that supported Ken's point.
It appears the mistake is yours. As Ken said, ""... Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Growth."*
Pres Obama's best year was 2.9% annual GDP in 2015. Ken spoke of annual numbers and you refuted with quarterly numbers???
*I didn't check out the "only president to never have..." part, I am only speaking to the Obama years part.
Your sort of right, they are quarterly numbers but they are annualized (which is the measure you most often see). Yes, Bush was the last president to manage an average annual growth above 3% in 2005. Obama came close in 2014 and 2015 with 2.6% and 2.9% respectively. Trump's 2017 number is 2.3%. He will need a couple of great quarters to achieve 3% in 2018. I don't see that happening because of the tariffs.
In earthshine land it is a crime to get to keep more of your own money. What a mixed up head one must have to think that way.
Who's going to make up the trillion and a half dollars not going into the treasury as usual, you?
And if you are wondering which $1.5 trillion Randy is talking about, it is the increase in deficit spending your spend-happy GOP friends have created with the GOPTaxScam. Don't bank on increased growth - the only people predicting that are the ones who created such a poor tax bill.
The top 50% of Americans pay 97.1% of taxes. (As of 2015). If the bottom 50% could kick in a little more, it would be huge. Of course that won't happen because conservatives don't want to be hated and liberals will claim people will starve if that happens. Such is the America we live in today.
You might want to qualify that to income taxes. If you are talking about taxes in general, almost 100% of adult Americans pay them.
For example, we all pay:
* payroll taxes
* sales taxes
* property taxes
* state taxes
* excise taxes.
So saying 50% of Americans don't pay taxes is simply being disingenuous and trying to create a false narrative.
Oh, come on. I was talking about Federal Income taxes. This was in response to -Who's going to make up the trillion and a half dollars not going into the treasury as usual, you? There is no false narrative here. Everybody wants to point the finger at another guy to pay the taxes. We need to bring in more money or stop deficit financing. But then some folks think deficits are great.
You know that, but why do you assume I do? I take you at your word when you say taxes.
Like Republicans with the #GOPTaxScam causing the largest deficits in a long, long time.
Before income inequality started going haywire in the 1980s, a lot higher percentage of Americans paid federal income taxes. But beginning in the 80s, the top 20% of income earners saw huge growth in income while the next 60% saw flat to moderate growth and the lower 20% saw flat to decreased income. So why would one expect the stratification of who pays income taxes to remain the same?
Of course Earthshine said no such thing, your just fabricating.
You think George Washington's economic policy resembles today's liberals? LOL!
Maybe God should threaten both parties with the Noah ark.
Greed dieses is unstoppable. Maybe Global warming washout might stop them, cause people are too hypnotized.
To the degree that his administration chose to intervene in the economy, yes.
As I hinted at before, but will say outright here, one distinguishing feature between conservative economics and liberal economics is the liberals believe that some type of federal reserve is needed to moderate the economy when needed. His administration started the First Bank of the United States.
In any case, I would have hoped you noticed I didn't include it anyway in the liberal group of 10 periods.
Well you put the notion out there. And it's completely backwards.
Washington's economic policy was nothing like todays liberals or conservatives.
Were he alive today we would be calling him a libertarian, regardless of whether he were in favor of centralized banks or not. Those guys were reading Adam Smith, not Karl Marx.
I explained it to you. So, if you choose not to understand it, that is up to you.
No, he wouldn't have been a libertarian, at least that is not the way his biography reads. Libertarians believe that government should stay out of everybody's business and leave the economy entirely alone. Washington signed off on a type of Federal Reserve - no libertarian would ever do that would they?
BTW, why did you bring in Marx? His theory is not liberal, read Keynesian, economics.
I don't understand Liberal or conservative politics anymore than Religion.
My personal attitude would be more liberal to explore and expand like the universe, to be creative. Goverments should not be creative and stay out of our business, if we are not harming any person or thing. The only job the Government is, is to protect us. Over security and wars are harming are freedom, economy and security.
Your key phrase, Castlepaloma, is ", if we are not harming any person or thing."
So let me ask, what do you want government to do when you personally or a large segment of society or society itself or the environment is being hurt by someone or some group or by another segment of society?
To me government has two choices: 1) stand by and let it happen and let many people be hurt or 2) do something about it to try to mitigate the damage. There is no middle ground as I see it. So which option do you choose?
US is not a democracy, it's not Republic. US is a oligarchy. Even democracy has to consider minority groups like gays, 10℅ of population is Gays. Homosexual are illegal in 76 countries right now.
Corperatcracy has became the new Globalisms meaning it makes no difference anymore what party wins, they are all puppet's to special interest groups Corperations. They must make high profits regardless of the cost to be social and environmental organization, no protection. By means of debt, bribery and political overthrow. The Government is no longer protecting the majority of people, they more interchangeable with Corperationism, to avoid responsibility and defeating smaller competition. Greatly lacking any integrity leaving the public vulnerable like economic slaves
Banks have done nothing for poverty and they give lowest bid to sweatshops waving a white flag, wail big Corperations soar. Trump wage increase won't help high inflation. We no longer live in World of culture and Idealogy, US is a business.
There is solution model for protection. Iceland removed their bankruptcy to being one the happiness countries in the world. By locking up many bankers and politicans, their women have the true balls.
That all may be true, but how do you answer my previous question. Also, corporations are not responsible for the most pernicious harm being done in America - racism. What role should government play in that?
What makes positive changes in America is grass root organization who grow into the 80℅ of the consciousness. Not Government change not Corperationism change, Where their bottomline is money, power and to protect themselves.
Have not seen this much Racism since black were segregated, could not vote or was illegal to enter into interracial marriage. It was illegal to be gay and so on, in the 60s.
A racist survey shows most Americans find America has a big racist problem. Votes 20 to 1 compare to racist is not a problem in America. In Canada immigrates tell me the biggest reason they don't live in America is Racism.
The lowest option over a US president, has to be Trump from the G20, ever. Over trade wars, UN, Oil wars, immigration, domestic race wars. World war, Tariff's, Paris Accord and on and on. Not good for America.
If US do not lock up their Bankers and Politics nothing will get better only worse. The bad guys are running things by fear, where the good guys of love are locked up. Prisons, that has grown ten times in the past 40 years.
For capitalism to run effectively Corperationism must change drastically and human beings treated equally.
"A racist survey shows most Americans find America has a big racist problem."
Can you show this "survey", complete with methodology and actual results, not just conclusions? Because it isn't what I see or hear at all. Or did I misunderstand and you meant a racist survey - a survey by racists determined to "prove" racism when there is none?
US Religious have such blind faith. Nationism has blindfaith and a great mental blocks of awareness. It's like these white society are fairytales, not politic or Religion
While a majority (57 per cent) of people agreed that “white people benefit from advantages in society that black people do not have” Trump said Blacks have the advantage, Since majority news is fake, Trump pulls his reserch from his ass. Most women I date are non white. I know personally, these problems are even more difficult than if I were gay.
Independent racism survey said 20 to 1 most Americans find racism a Big problems vs not a problem
NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll said that racism remains a “major problem” in American society. Nearly three-quarters said racial discrimination against blacks represented a serious issues.
Pew research center
Overall, 61% say the country needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites.
All others racism surveys I check said the same thing. Most Americans have a big racist problem. Where a man says he has not one Racist bone in his body. If so, he must be blind and cement headed.
By the way, Liberal professors are always spewing out Marx, Trotsky, etc. pumping it into the soft heads of our college youth. You know, that stuff that has never ever worked in practice.
I have listened to lots and lots of professors on a large variety of topics in my 70 years. Never heard one spew Marx, et al. (except when that was the subject)
So there's no Marxist professors? I bet I can show you at least thirty videos of students filming their professors going on socialist, or communist rants.
Did you have a Marxist professor in your college, Onus? Or did you attend college at all?
Perhaps you can tell us your real name then, Doc?
And you ignored my query as to your professors being Marxists.
I try to make it a principle not to debate the precepts of liberty with liberals or Socialists on Independence day. It's like taking a poop right after you got out of the shower.
I'll ask you again tomorrow when it's not a holiday, Onus. You are apparently afraid to give your real name anyway. Frightened are you? Till tomorrow them..
No thanks, leftists are much to inclined to harass and intimidate people they disagree with.
It's okay to punch a Nazi, and everyone they disagree with is a Nazi.
I knew you wouldn't reveal your real name, onus. You are one of those folks who love to hide behind a fake name and comment on all sorts of subjects. You really are afraid someone will find out who and what you are. I've noticed this is often the case with religious folk as well.
They love to preach to people but don't want to be responsible for their own words. I'm sorry you're so afraid......
Well you've certainly got me pegged, I guess I have to tell you my name now...
Not a chance, as you admitted I've had you pegged for quite a while. You can make any claims you wish, but you're essentially a non-person as long as you choose to hide your identity. You're really a woman, aren't you? That's okay.
I was just going by the way you get your panties in a wad on occasion, and unless you haven't noticed, being PC went out the door when Spanky was elected. You should be very pleased, Madam.
Be my guest, although you will probably have trouble finding 30 DIFFERENT professors doing that. And, even if you could, exactly what does it prove if you can find 30 professors out of tens of thousands, who actually "rant" in support of socialism and communism?
Also according to a market watch survey, the communist manifesto is one of the top three texts that are assigned in US college economics classes. To say that it's not a growing trend is willful ignorance my friend.
So what does that mean? Schools are not suppose to teach history?
Economics and history are two separate classes. Shouldn't they be teaching Economics lessons that are actually useful rather than a failed philosophy that never works in practice?
The history of economics is not it’s own entity. To understand any topic fully, you need to learn all the models/theories of that topic. Thus the successes and failures are extremely relevant.
That would be great if the professors taught it from an objective viewpoint.
How do you know they don't. Do you have PERSONAL experience to draw that conclusion? I do and they did teach economics objectively.
The concept of the modern central bank did not appear until the 20th century. Hancock and Washington would be rolling in their graves if they saw what it has become. I agree on your opinion of the number of professors ranting about socialism or communism. I have listened to many - they just lulled me to sleep.
Hi My Esoteric, your OP prompts an interesting thought. Bear in mind it is just a thought - not a challenge or affirmation of the OP's point.
Did your research consider the "inherited" times of those Liberal and Conservative administrations? For example; a comparison of the economic times Clinton inherited would not seem valid as compared to the economy Obama inherited. Or, perhaps Hoover vs. Roosevelt?
Or, does that question even matter? Are your numbers just indicators of administration performance - regardless of starting point?
GA, not yet but that has crossed my mind to look at in this piece. Other hubs did try to measure that.
However, this piece is concerned with longer time periods. Basically, the periods I chose is when fiscal and/or social policies changed. For example, the administrations between 1860 - 1884 held a completely different world view than say the administrations between 1852 - 1860.
BTW - I forget to mention Trump's record for the first 1.25 years of his administration - 2.47%. Once his four years is over, it will become the 11th conservative period.
Personally, I think the 2nd Qtr report will be the zenith of his economic growth; these tariffs are going to kill him and America
Also, while it won't show up in his term or even the next two or three, his immigration policy, if successful, will slow GDP growth substantially in the decades to come.
I will let Princeton research speak for itself. From the abstract, "The U.S. economy has performed better when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (on which we focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, and perhaps greater defense spending and faster growth abroad."
This paper is great reading. All should take a gander. https://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/pape … ly2015.pdf
I think you have to consider the varying factors:
1) How strong the Party in Control of Congress is - to harken to a recent example, during Clinton's Administration the Republicans gained firm control of Congress, and therefore dictated the direction of the economy. While we tend to give credit to Presidents, its often who controls Congress (or who controls the politicians in Congress) that determines economic growth.
2) War - This depends on whether we are supporting full-scale war efforts, or half-effort war efforts. When the country fully committed to the war effort and industry is working overtime to keep up with demands being placed on it, we see growth during, and long after, the war (as America after WWII was the industrialized nation left unscathed, it was able to benefit/capitalize on the incapability of other nations to do so).
3) External forces - Other nations and occurrences can impact the growth (or lack) of the economy. When OPEC formed and flexed its economic muscles in the 1970s that impacted things drastically, a perfect example of how outside forces can impact the nation directly.
And of course, Democrat or Republican is just a label that glosses over the differences and distinctions of era and personality. John Kennedy held more views in common with Donald Trump (despite one being far more articulate than the other) than he did with Barak Obama. Kennedy believed in the Sovereignty of the Nation, he wanted to break apart the CIA (and of course the development of the NSA into what its become), I don't for a second think he would have supported the idea of a One-World government, a weaker America, or the efforts to eradicate the Constitution. He was too well educated, one only has to read 'Profiles in Courage' to glimpse his perspective on America's history and struggles, the last thing he would support is its eradication so that it could be rewritten.
Thanks for you insights Ken.
The idea is that by looking at swaths of time, most of those "other" factors, of which as you pointed out, are many, are spread out among the various administrations and equally represented.
Take war - was the economy during a particular period (not necessarily administration) significantly impacted by war? Was the period, using my terms, conservative or liberal? Did war impact only the conservative periods or just the liberal periods.
Split Parties - Were conservative periods more weighted toward cases where the president and Congress were of different party, or were liberal periods?
External Forces - Again, did these forces impact disproportionately the conservative periods more than the liberal periods or vice-versa?
Agrarian vs Industrial - Once more, were liberal periods more agrarian than conservative ones or the other way around?
My assumption is that each of those factors, over the 150 year history, are equally represented in each period. (this is why I took such a long look)
Now, what if the answer to any of these is yes, then the question becomes "why". Why were conservative periods more prone to the effect of wars? Why were liberal periods more prone to split government and what was the real effect if this is the case.
I don't use Democratic or Republican labels for exactly the reason you give, the only constant is which philosophy, conservative or liberal, effected the economy more for any given period of years.
Kennedy, the last of the good Presidents.
I think that has a lot of merit, taking the political party aspect out of it to look at it from the type of economic policy being pursued and why (if that can indeed be accurately broken down into Liberal vs Conservative) … is a rather brilliant approach.
Had I taken the time to read through more of the comments rather than just the opening statement, my comment might have been more relevant.
BTW - you seem to have been done in by the right-wing propaganda machine. President Kennedy, for example, wanted the CIA and special operators to prosecute the Vietnam War rather than regular forces. Doesn't sound like he wanted to disband the CIA.
All of those things you attribute to Obama are factually false. Provide concrete examples where Obama wanted a One-World Government and the rest of the presidents before him didn't. Provide concrete examples of all of those other, frankly, ridiculous claims.
The fact is Trump is and has been mentally unstable. There is nothing about him that makes him fit for the job of President of the United States. In less than 18 months he has attacked and turned allies into enemies and fellow murderous dictators into friends. (Trump is not a real dictator yet, but only because our system of government gets in his way, but relative to the Republican party is the definition of a strongman who will brook zero resistance to his rule - just ask those Republicans he "primaried"
"The fact is Trump is and has been mentally unstable."
Can you supply a physician's report of a thorough examination concluding mental illness, or are you just parroting the rants of the far left again?
Maybe you haven't seen this but here's just one example of Mr. Trump's severe mental illnesses which include paranoia, delusional episodes, hallucinations and tizzy anger fits like this:
You don't need a degree or any other special knowledge to understand this anxious mush mind is detached from reality: He also believes Ted Cruz' father was responsible for JFKs assassination and slurs his speech:
Abnormal behavior from an abnormal, mentally unstable imbecile:
I repeat: when you have a report of a thorough examination by a qualified psychiatrist, concluding mental illness, then you can report that he is mentally ill.
Until then you're just spouting hate and lies, nothing more, for you do not have a diagnosis by anyone qualified to make one.
lol: When you receive a report by a qualified psychiatrist which there are many in existence, you'll simply continue to deny his mental illness and demand another report from another qualified psychiatrists and then another and yet another: Trump needs to be removed ASAP before it's too late:
"Psychiatrists Warn About Trump’s Mental State"
"To the Editor:
I am the editor of “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.” We represent a much larger number of concerned mental health professionals who have come forward to warn against the president’s psychological instability and the dangers it poses. We now number in the thousands.
We are currently witnessing more than his usual state of instability — in fact, a pattern of decompensation: increasing loss of touch with reality, marked signs of volatility and unpredictable behavior, and an attraction to violence as a means of coping. These characteristics place our country and the world at extreme risk of danger."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/opin … trump.html
I think we all know the little republican game by now: Deny Deny Deny:
In reality, Bozo Trump is the sickest most angry and sadistic retarded nut case I've ever seen in my life, you don't need a degree to realize that fact, we've all beared witness to it for the last 3 chaotic years:
I would have to disagree with your point that what I said Obama wanted was false, if you look into what the TPP, the Paris Accords, and the great many EOs that he signed which handed over America's sovereign rights to the U.N., WTO, or WB then you could only conclude he was in support of a unified one-world system.
Nothing particularly wrong with that at all, other than we are not at a time in our history where collectively the world is ready for that or could make it work, and however well intended (or not) those pursuing that agenda may be, they seem to miss the concept that countries like China and Russia don't plan on playing nice and going along with that if they can help it.
BUT let me add, that wasn't merely Obama's plan or efforts, the nation has been guided along that road uninterrupted thru Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama, the names changed, the Party changed, the same policies continued to be implemented throughout.
So in that sense, I should not have pointed the finger merely at Obama in that instance, they are all culpable, Trump is the first time the nation has veered off the course it has been on in over a quarter century.
We are closer being on the cusp of a split world economy, where BRICS frees itself from dependency on the petro-dollar than we are of implementing a successful one-world government within the next generation.
Trump is the same guy he was before he became President, lot of bravado, bluster, and ego... he is nothing like the boogymen types and evil historical figures so many in the MSM try to make him out to be. Fortunately the majority of America (even if its only a slim majority) has woken up to the fact that the MSM hysteria is mostly fiction.
The thing is, most people, including me, think the ' if you look into what the TPP, the Paris Accords ..." are very good, if not necessary, actions. The first one isolates China economically, not now Trump has isolated America. The second would have at least postponed, if not reverse the devastation climate change WILL bring if nothing is done - Trump, and apparently you, are blind to the truth about what is happening with the climate are working to kill my and your own grandkids and commit suicide.
And what "great many EOs that he signed which handed over America's sovereign rights to the U.N., WTO, or WB" would these be? "Handing over America's sovereignty and one-world government" are false propaganda lines designed to scare unthinking Americans. Why do you think America can even survive isolated from the rest of world? It has never worked in the past and won't work now.
You do realize that Trump is governing by EO don't you?
Why did you forget every president after Jefferson when you created the "Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama, ... " list? Jefferson was the last president who tried isolationism and it didn't work. Why is Trump smarter than all of these other presidents put together?
"Trump is the same guy he was before he became President, lot of bravado, bluster, and ego..." you could have stopped there with that truth. The majority of Americans by a large margin reject Trump. A monkey could have beat Clinton given her terrible campaigning, forgetting the white male, Comey, and Putin. Even as flawed as she was as a candidate, Clinton would have won if it hadn't been for Comey and Putin. Don't forget that Trump won by less than 90,000 votes in exactly the places Clinton didn't think she needed to campaign.
Trump is dangerous, unstable, and mentally ill and that is apparently what the right wants for a president.
You'll find out those who voted for Dubya detest Obama for his cleaning up Dubya's mess. After supporting a reckless POTUS through two terms of a rubber stamp Congress, he only succeeded in invading a country on false claims of WMDs and ruining the economy.
Naturally his voters feel some shame in defending him and his VP during the Haliburton and Blackwater scams, and lest we forget, Cheney was a former Haliburton CEO.
Damn Obama for cleaning up his mess!!
I watch G.Bush admit on YouTube that 9/11 could have been an inside Job. Wail his wife was in shock, starring at him.
If you could have read her mind. She would have said, Are YOU completely NUTS!
I don't see Obama cleaning up anything, and anyone who chooses to take of their blinders, or stops looking at things through the prism of 'their side' winning or losing, can see this.
Obama gave is the destruction of Libya as a functional nation, creating more chaos, bloodshed and refugees. Obama gave us Syria as well, more chaos, bloodshed and refugees. Partaking in the destruction of nations, and thereby the murder of hundreds of thousands of people is not cleaning up anything.
Obama did not end Afghanistan, he did not end Iraq, he did not broker peace anywhere, and he gifted the world the collapse of Libya and Syria.
What is it that he cleaned up?
Dubya's recession, or did Obama create that as well?
Obama fixed nothing, the Wall St. wolves were let in to 'fix it' by bailing out the banks, and tripling the national debt.
The best thing about Obama is he gave people "Hope" even if there was no "change" at a time when millions were losing their homes and their jobs.
As I said in an earlier comment, there was no direction change, no positive policy change in a quarter century. From Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama, there was a lot of rhetoric and fingerpointing, but we kept right on driving down the same exact road. And it was the people of America that paid the price for it. Eventually enough of them got sick of it, and we got Trump.
So, if Dubya's policies continued, we'd be fine? Geeze, what universe are you living in, Ken. You probably supported the idiot Palin for VP as well.
And you seem to have no problem with Spanky giving the wealthy a huge tax break.
Randy, it is impossible to discuss something intelligently when the other side doesn't comprehend the subject matter or history.
Ken forgets that it was BUSH who created the Syria problem by signing the Status of Forces agreement which tied Obama's hands. Of course the Trumper's solution is simply tear up any agreement you don't like.
Trump tore up TPP (the darling of the right-wing ... until it wasn't). That move left America isolated in the Pacific and let China take control
Trump tore up the Paris Climate Accord and the result is a much increased chance of climatic disaster beginning around 2050 - 2060 (if it hasn't already begun) Trump's anti-climate policies are already increasing America's carbon footprint.
Trump tore up the Iran Nuclear Deal making the world a much more dangerous place by taking away the only thing stopping Iran from starting their program again (fortunately Europe is trying to hold things together until we get a new president.
Trump turned North Korea from a pariah nation to one that now has a seat at the world table although while Un keeps up his nuclear program and making Trump look like the fool he is.
Trump is legitamizing another murderous dictator by meeting with Putin, his mentor in authoritarianism.
Trump is in the process of destroying the great American economy that Obama left him by showing his economic stupidity by going to war with our allies and should lead to a recession in less than a year.
Besides that, Trump is something else Obama never was - mentally unstable.
"it was BUSH who created the Syria problem by signing the Status of Forces agreement which tied Obama's hands. Of course the Trumper's solution is simply tear up any agreement you don't like.
Trump tore up TPP (the darling of the right-wing ... until it wasn't). That move left America isolated in the Pacific and let China take control"
One of the issues Trump ran on, was trade, and that included ditching the TPP.
One of the issues Obama ran on, was ending useless, unjustifiable conflicts and war, and he did nothing of the sort.
Obama ran on a lot of things, and for the most part, did none of them.
Trump also ran on a lot of things, and so far is trying to do those things.
In two years I guess we will see if America prefers the direction he is taking the country, over the previous direction of the last 4 Presidents.
I'm not worried about it right now, until the Democrats come up with a viable candidate, all they have is this constant Trump bashing, and it has become toxic to anyone other than a 'true hater' which I believe is a smaller portion of America today, than it was a year ago, and that trend is likely to continue.
Obama didn't fulfill even one promise eh. That just shows who out of touch you are with the real world. Now keep in mind the conservatives (I can't even call them Republicans anymore) PROMISED to destroy Obama BEFORE he even became president. They failed.
By Politifact's count, Obama kept or compromised on 78.8% of 533 promises made; what's more, all those promises were designed to improve life in America. The conservatives managed to stop only 21% of what he wanted to do - A FAR CRY from "None", wouldn't you say.
On the other hand, virtually every promise Trump has made is bad for America. The fact he has been able to keep so many of them has turned America into a piranha nation laughed at by our former allies and laughed at our enemies who he wants to make friends. He has cost America respect in the world and shown we cannot be trusted to keep promises. He is also showing America is a heartless nation, he is turning America into his own, despicable image.
Trump literally is making me sick to my stomach and wish I had fled to Canada rather than volunteer for Vietnam; something the draft dodging Trump was too afraid to do.
I refer you to my last comment to GA Anderson which referred to Noam Chomsky.
I really have no interest in getting in a petty useless argument over what you believe Obama did or didn't do, or Trump did or didn't do, or Bush, or who-ever.
You refuse to acknowledge that the system has been broken for a quarter century. That there is no difference between Clinton or Bush Jr. or Obama, that the country stayed on the same path, that key politicians in Congress have been there that entire time, and that an excessive amount of corruption and criminal activity, as well as a unreasonable amount of anti-American sentiment has firmly established in D.C.
Since the passing of the ACA there has been a growing push against the establishment, and the resultant fresh faces in Congress, and the election of a non-politician to the Presidency is a result of the people being fed up. And that won't change any in his first two years, more people will be drawn to him, not less, so long as the economy keeps chugging along.
I will add that while I don't feel there was a significant difference between Democrat and Republican most of the past 30 years... there certainly is a major shift becoming public and obvious during Obama's term, and increasing since Trump got elected.
The Democratic party, with mouthpieces like Waters and Pelosi has never looked worse. And the more extreme and violent they get, the more the MSM works overtime to slander Trump, the more they will drive middle of the road Americans into Trump's corner.
"most people, including me, think the 'if you look into what the TPP, the Paris Accords ...' are very good, if not necessary, actions. The first one isolates China economically, not now Trump has isolated America. The second would have at least postponed, if not reverse the devastation climate change WILL bring if nothing is done "
TPP would have done nothing for America however, it was pro-International business, and would have helped protect the very top tier earners. It would have helped in the moving of jobs overseas, as has been going on for decades now. The 'working class' would have lost more job opportunities.
The Paris Accords was a transfer of wealth via taxation that would have worked its way down to the 'working class' in North America and Europe, so while we would have had to pay for our 'carbon footprint' nations like China (who by far consumes far more coal than we do) and India were allowed to skate, because they were 'developing nations'.
Having been to places like China and Korea, I can tell you there is nothing 'developing' about those countries unless your term of 'developing' is meant to mean becoming more technologically and industrially capable than America is.
"And what "great many EOs that he signed which handed over America's sovereign rights to the U.N., WTO, or WB" would these be? "Handing over America's sovereignty"
Obama signs Law of the Sea Treaty ... United States' coastal jurisdictions will be subject to the United Nations' Law Of Sea Treaty ...
Obama signs the United Nations Biodiversity Treaty, our National Parks owned by American citizens for over 200 years, have been turned over to the UN. The UN has ultimate jurisdiction.
That's two, I could find more unfortunately, but I wanted to note them merely to prove the validity of the statement.
It has been pretty well shown that Democrat presidents serve in luckier times.
Let's put this nonsense to bed., Esoteric. If you say the same things over and argue until everyone ignores you, it does't mean you are right.
From Blinder and Watson -
"The U.S. economy has performed better when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (on which we focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, and perhaps greater defense spending and faster growth abroad." - Princeton 2015
You are far from esoteric. You get a bit chippy when your argument starts to slide. It is rather humorous. Move on to more fertile grounds. This discussion is over.
So you want us to believe that President Clinton was 'lucky' for 8 years with his stellar economy, President Bush was 'unlucky' with his disastrous 8 year economy, President Obama was 'lucky' with his 8 year stellar economy and now phony President Trump is unlucky with his disastrous economy?
I'm not so sure you have a credible story: There is a clear distinction between Dems and Cons with regard to the economy: I think policies or lack there of contributed to the results, not 'luck of the draw': Right now, we have an incoherent, dangerously absurd Russian Poodle influencing our economy from the inside and he's doing everything within his power for whatever reason to undermine and weaken President Obama's once great economy: American companies are exporting jobs and our wealth at a more accelerated pace which Vladimir Putin must approve of: The sooner Mr. Trump is indicted, tried and imprisoned for life, the sooner we can begin to salvage what's left of a rapidly collapsing USA:
"It has been pretty well shown that Democrat presidents serve in luckier times. " - LOL, you have got to be kidding me!
I read through Binder and Watson. Here is what I noticed relative to what I presented at the outset.
1. My data set starts in 1800 and theirs starts in 1947
2. I considered periods where conservative economics dominated or liberal economics dominated. They looked at individual Republican and Democratic presidential terms
3. Because they are looking only at 1947 on, then Republican generally equal conservative theory while Democrats represent liberal economics. Prior to 1947, that was not necessarily the case, in fact, it was generally the opposite.
4. I was asking the question about whether conservative or liberal economic theory did better. They were asking if election outcomes help predict subsequent macroeconomic performance?
5. I noticed that when they did consider periods before the Great Depression, they fall into the same trap most people do - they think Democrats and Republicans held the same economic views then as they do today - and that is simply not true and would have a significant impact on their findings if they extended it before 1933.
So, let's look at their conclusion; which is much more than you suggest.
1. 4.2 Was it just luck? - Statistical significance levels are meant to answer such questions. And in this case, the verdict is clear:It is highly unlikely that the D-R growth gap was just luck, in the sense of more
favorable random draws from the same distribution.
2. For the period 1947 to the end of the study period, they conclude that 46% to 62% of the 1.8% GDP growth difference was "potentially" due to luck facts of oil, productivity, and war. But that means 38% to 54% is due to "other" factors that require further research.
3. They don't rule out possible policy differences which lead to the "luck" aspect they identify.
4. BUT, I have to repeat, their study ONLY applies to the period after 1947, and because of data limitation really only after 1964.
Thanks for offering this - it is a great source for statistical techniques and data.
Good question? if Republican economy record is much better. The combined policy categories could be a sweep for them.
I am guessing you are mis-reading the numbers.
To Be Clear:
The Republican (2018) = Conservative growth rate is far worse than the Democratic (2018) = Liberal GDP growth rate.
Sorry, switched wrong labels.
What category dose Republican have on Democrats?
It depends on when you are talking about. Give me a date and I will give you the parties dominant philosophy.
For example: if you ask about 1864 then my answer is Republican (1864) = liberal and Democrat (1864) = conservative
But in 1964 then my answer is Republican (1964) = conservative and Democrat (1964) = somewhat liberal (although there was a large contingent of conservative southern Ds at that point in time)
All social / political history should be TAUGHT , all of it from A-Z Alinskyism , Maoism to Nazism , But what it should never be is indoctrinated , as social /political reengineering is happening from preschool day- care on to college right under the parent's noses in America .
What's strange to me are the people who act like there's no bias when the data clearly shows the kids are being indoctrinated by their leftist professors.
Sure, as soon as you give your real name so I can tell what gender your are.
You are deliberately using the wrong pronoun to extort me into giving you my personal information.
You're way to scared to give your personal info, Ma'am. In fact, with the dearth of hubs and your lack of success on HP, you're really just a troll using the forums to spout your anonymous political BS.
How can we tell you're a man with a fake name and photo on your profile, Ms? I'm so sorry you're afraid to use your real name when you're commenting on the political forums. If you did it would make your claims more credible, but I can see you're too afraid of everyone to do so.
Have a good day, Honey.
"So what explains the better economic performance under Democratic presidents? Blinder and Watson identified two factors—oil shocks and increases in what’s called Total Factor Productivity—as the main culprits. Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy." See http://fortune.com/2014/07/29/economic- … residents/
I don't think we can draw any conclusions other than good luck.
I have also heard that the public does better when a Democratic president has a Republican Congress. Is that significant? Anybody out there?
Well said, I'm more inclined to think that the two parties hold each other up while acting like they despise each other in order to get nothing accomplished.
Yes, oil was a major cause of the Nixon-Ford economic woes, but none of the others - especially George W. By the time oil increased precipitously, the economy was already in fast decline due primarily a failed conservative economic theory that let it happen.
Also, Nixon-Ford and George W are only 2 of the 10 conservative periods. Energy wasn't a factor in the other 8.
The economy by 1983 rebounded and enjoyed a sustained period of growth as the annual inflation rate stayed below 5 percent for the remainder of the 1980s and part of the 1990s. Take out those two and see what's left. Our early presidents presided over an agrarian society. None of the early presidents could be construed as leftists economically. It seems quite a stretch. They all would be considered conservative by today's standards.
I love reading your posts. Do you have a hit counter?
In one sense you are correct about early presidents not knowing about Keynesian economics. But that didn't stop them from implementing some of the policies and theories Keynes developed many years later to explain why conservative economics only seemed to work with times were good and actually made things worse when they went bad.
Fundamental to "leftist" economics, as you call it, is the need for government to intervene in the marketplace when it starts to head south. The vehicle for that intervention is the Federal Reserve which actively controls the money supply.
I presume you know your history and remember that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton started the first Fed look-alike. It was called the First Bank of the United States and was violently opposed by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. That bank was the 1790 version of the Federal Reserve, that leftist institution,.
To continue, President Jackson let the First Bank's charter to expire only to have James Madison, the mighty foe of the 1st Bank, to charter the Second Bank of the United States in order to bail America out of another great economic downturn. Madison gritted his teeth and let government intervene and control interest rates, money supply, and the abolition of state money.
So, because of the above, I have to heartily disagree with you that administrations of old didn't employ Keynesian economics when the country went to hell-in-a-breadbasket and needed saving again. It took a long series of devastating depressions and recessions to finally convince Teddy Roosevelt and his Congress of the need for a true Federal Reserve in 1908.
As to "conservative" vs "liberal" in the early days. I'll let you do your own research as I have written about this extensively elsewhere but may I start you out by pointing out that Thomas Jefferson, slave owner as he was, was still a liberal while John C. Calhoun (d. 1850) was the epitome of a conservative.
How do I differentiate between the two? Jefferson, while "economically stuck" with being a slave owner was nevertheless one of the great proponents of eventual emancipation. Calhoun, on the other hand, prepared the way for civil war with his defense of slavery.
Interesting, US has lost the gold standard, back in 1973.
Since then our leaders over focus on oil and have created a debtors system and a very toxic environment.
Onusonus, The wanna- be leftist riff- raff here are mostly of an age who were indoctrinated and fell into lock step , black belts across their chests , tan shirts , high fiving leftist who'd rather die than think for themselves . Don't let them get to you , if you'll notice it's never a reasoning they produce . It's just one shock jock line saying after another after another ,very Howard Stern's if you will .
Facts ? Not a one.
Truths ? Nope
Back up data , Un uhh ! Just pure net troll .
It's flat out harassment. The guy has seen me in and out of this forum over the last 9 years and all of a sudden decides to label me a woman.
Intellectual leftist delusions are like that . still delusions .
Well totalitarianism is alive and well with the advocates of the left, and one thing a totalitarian regime can't stand is ambiguity. One of the very freedoms that we celebrate in a free society.
Of course I may never be as relevant as say, George Orwell, or Mark Twain, But my relevance belongs to me.
And just who are YOU to say what's relevant to anyone? What are your qualifications to do so, Honey?
One can easily identify HP trolls by the lack of hubs and views, as well as a fake name and photo on their profiles. They cannot succeed as writers on the site, and for some reason, they expect to be taken seriously even though are as anonymous as they can be. Truly too frightened to stand behind their claims using a real name in the forums, sorta like the anonymous Xtians who want to preach behind a wall...
Anyone can easily check my identity as I'm not terrified to give my real name like some from the right. I stand behind my words and am unafraid of someone knowing who I am. Not surprised at all you guys are so scared to put a real name behind your claims though.
Come on My Esoteric, that was not "Well said." It was the culmination of a series of petty responses trying to denigrate and insult another forum poster, using their hub count and username as clubs.
I don't think either have any bearing on a political discussion forum, but apparently you and Randy do.
Does that mean that you think someone that joins HP primarily for the forums, rather than writing hubs is nothing more than a low IQ troll that is afraid to stand behind their opinions - My Esoteric?
Do you think that a real name username is a criteria for credibility - My Esoteric?
Apparently Randy's answer would be yes to both questions. (but, I would bet there is one username that perfectly fits his Onusonus" judgement model that he would exempt)
I just gritted my teeth and moved along as Randy carried these type of responses to more and more hostile and insulting levels, but then you come along and say Well said!. Geez Louise - My Esoteric.
Did you even consider how wrong those high-horse assumptions of his could be? What if his "judgments" of Onusonus were applied to a username like My Esoteric, or Camping with Kids?
I only have 40-some hubs under GA Anderson, and I have only written one "GA Anderson" hub in the last couple of years here. My earnings writing efforts are applied to my own sites for the last several years. I only visit now for my forum participation. That seems to qualify me to fit Randy's model of judgement - as he has applied to Onusonus
But, I have multiple other HP accounts - all using demographic-specific usernames; like, Camping with Kids. I don't remember the exact number, but although forum members can only see my 40+ GA Anderson hubs, I have close to 200 under the other account's usernames. (HP rules only allow us to use one username to post to forums, so I chose my "opinion" account - GA Anderson as my forum identity)
Could it be possible that Onusonus might be a similar example?
Do you view me as a low IQ forum troll My Esoteric? My thoughts and behavior would be the same if I had chosen my Camping with Kids as my forum ID.
Geesh, what a rant. I am not defending Onusonus, I just saw red when someone that I considered to have a bit of forum credibility dumps it down the drain by affirming a culminating post that I see as really poor form.
But, it did feel good to finally get that off my chest. Sometimes sticking to polite and civil behavior can be a pain in the ass. Fortunately, for me, this forum provides ample examples that fortify my resolve, so that lapses like this one are few and far in-between.
I understand what you say, GA, but then I find that
ahorseback has no bio and one article in 8 years.
Onusonus does has no bio but does much better with 71 articles in 9 years
bradmasterOCcal has no bio but a 116 articles in 3 years but if memory serves was kicked off of HP once.
and then there is GA Anderson - Great bio with 46 articles in 7 years.
The first three are trolls while the latter is not.
*sigh... Still hanging on to the username and article measuring stick.
Of course I think you are wrong, but I accept that is your choice. Mine is different, but then, I have always been a fan of Baskin-Robbins for the same reason - a flavor for everyone.
BTW, GA. I have a new book for you: "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" by Bandy Lee, M.D., M.Div. It is a compilation of papers submitted by 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts' assessment of Trump.
I am turning the contents of each paper into a hub as well as including summaries in the hub I have already written on Trump's mental health.
Did any of those "experts" do an actual examination of him? Even one of them?
Or are they making a faux "diagnosis" of the political persona he presents and then, ignoring any professional ethics they might have once had, going public with opinions unsubstantiated by any actual examination?
Why in the world would anyone (not suffering from TDS) buy something from such quacks?
Nope, that is the first topic they cover - why they can say what they do with only reviewing thousands of hours of tweets, books, audio, and video over decades of Trump's volatile life. Since you haven't bothered to look at their credentials, I won't bore you with the details, you won't agree anyway.
But for everyone else who is interested, every one of the 28 mental health experts are top in their respective fields. "Quacks" indeed!
Yes, quacks. Publishing a medical diagnosis on anyone, President or not, is very much against medical ethical standards. And doubly so when there was no examination ever done - only a "quack" would ever do such an unethical thing.
It is, plain and simple, a political statement that "I don't like Donald Trump" - no different than the thousands of others we hear and see. The only difference is they are ruining their reputation by using that reputation to put a false appearance of legitimacy to it.
You have drawn me in My Esoteric. First, I think Wilderness has a valid point about a diagnosis without direct interview interaction.
But then, I think you have a point when you refer to the credentials - they are the tops in their fields" - of the authors.
So, I did a Google search of the Book's title.
https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Dan … p;ie=UTF-8
Then, I read the links of the first two search pages - minus the ones that were just selling the book - like the Amazon links.
What I ended up with was an affirmation of my agreement with Wilderness' point.
Throughout the articles I read, I came across the explanations, by the authors, of why they felt their observational diagnosis was a valid diagnosis, and, necessary to be made public - regardless of the profession's long-held adherence to the "Goldwater Rule." And those explanations sounded credible -- until -- I looked for the reasons they decided to go public, (in book form), and, the ideological perspectives that would influence their perceptions.
There were a ton of excerpts that would validate their efforts - for someone that wanted to believe what they were saying, but there were also a lot of excerpts that would invalidate those same rationals - for someone that was skeptical from the start.
I won't list them, I am sure you have already read the same articles, but, the references to the liberal ideologies of the authors, (by a supporter of the book), the references to Noam Chomsky(sp?), (by multiple contributors), and, their declared opposition to the anti-Liberal direction our country is taking, sealed the deal for me.
This is not a book I can view as an unbiased reference. And I don't think that means I am ignoring the credentials of the authors, it just means that I think their "diagnosis" is ideologically driven - a point made, (more than once, although not as a rebuttal to their diagnosis), by the authors of the reviews and evaluations, of the articles. It would be an interesting hindsight moment to see if those authors maintained their diagnosis - after a thorough in-person interview. Such as what they might do under normal circumstances before forming a diagnosis.
"Noam Chomsky" is correct. An interesting and intelligent person to listen to. It would depend on how they referred to him, I would classify him as 'anti-establishment' in the sense of the corruption and criminal activity that is rampant in the system today.
I would also say he otherwise has a liberal bias, he was exposed to far-left politics through other members of his family when very young, a number of whom were socialists. Chomsky frequented left-wing and anarchist bookstores in NYC, he later described his discovery of anarchism as "a lucky accident", because it allowed him to become critical of other far-left ideologies, namely Stalinism and other forms of communism.
The reason why I enjoy listening to him, is he is a true independent thinker, he is just as critical of the 'left/progressive' movements as he is of the right, wherever the most corrupt and criminal activists/activities are currently stemming from he is willing to point it out, regardless of party or politics.
Many of his views I can agree with, most especially his understanding and revealing of the fact that since the late 80s (Bush Sr. -thru- Obama), the U.S. has become increasingly economically unequal as a result of the repeal of various financial regulations (ie - Glass-Steagall) and the rescinding of the Bretton Woods financial control agreements.
Norm correctly characterizes the U.S. as a one-party state, as the Republican Party and Democratic Party are manifestations of a single "Business Party" controlled by corporate and financial interests first and foremost. Chomsky highlights that the population has no control over economic decisions (for example NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP), which are instead in the hands of a corrupt majority in Congress ultimately controlled by a small, wealthy elite.
Trump is the first successful manifestation of the people's dissent to this corrupt system in over 30 years, if Trump is not successful in his endeavors to bring some balance to the system (the lower 80% having a bit more of the pie so to speak while ridding us of recent systems of outright thievery that had been emplaced like the ACA) the system will ultimately polarize into strong left/socialist and right/nationalist-conservative extremes taking hold, where violence becomes commonplace and then really bad things happen to our 'Republic'.
Thanks for thinking of me My Esoteric, but I will pass on that one. Just as I would pass on one claiming to document how Pres. Trump is the best thing since sliced bread.
Oh brother, taking a journey through the horrible mind of Trump is a ride I will never take again.
My experience dealing on contract with megalomanic like Trump. They are more mentally more cunning than you or the psychiatrist are. You just have to get rid of negative people like Trump or they harm you then they get rid of you anyways.
I don't know why you guys support any of these Presidents. They only manage to create worst messes than the one before.
Who is more responsible ! Obama's twenty Trillion dollars in debt pretty much explains it all for fiscally responsible people . Especially conservatives but even to a couple of democrats .
Yet , Is there such a thing as a fiscally responsible Democrat at this point , after Obama ?
Boy, your number keeps getting bigger with each telling.
And the importance of Obama Debt gets less and less important to the left ,..................That federal credit card feels good in the pocket huh ?
Ahorseback, the day you show a modicum of critical thinking ability is the day I, and probably many others, will start taking you seriously and not just a flame-thrower.
Esoteric, "flamethrowers "are what your media has come to fully represent , yet you have the nerve to say .".......take you seriously ............" ? Critical thinking exists in my perception of ideology certainly as much as it does yours , if you can't defeat my posts stay home , if you can't effectively speak to issues as much as you apparently think I do, that's your problem not mine. Otherwise my posts wouldn't bother you as they apparently do .
Give me examples of where the mainstream media reports (meaning not opinion) untruths ON PURPOSE like Trump and Fox do (I will give you a couple of mistakes, but none on purpose).
They simply don't exist.
The ability to think critically is not bound by philosophy. It is something you either do or don't do. Critical thinkers do a lot of research and look for reasons WHY such and such is.
Take for example your fascination with the so-called twenty billion dollar debt that was created under Obama's watch.
First you write it in such a way which implies Obama was responsible for every dime of it - he wasn't.
Then you don't tell the reader that the debt was already $10 trillion AND RAPIDLY increasing BEFORE Obama took office.
Then you don't offer that there are different ways to count how much Obama added. It ranges from $1 trillion to $9 trillion, depending on who you ask. It is near the lower number if you take out how much the debt would have increased REGARDLESS of who was president. Then you don't mention that the rest of the debt was for digging America out of the huge hole Bush left us in.
Now, I know many on the right think (they have said so many times) that it would have been better to let the world crash into a historic depression (no serious economist thinks otherwise in hindsight), but more intelligent minds prevailed.
Nope, you don't cover any of that and simply pin the whole $20 trillion on Obama and the Democrats.
There you go again , ........totally ignoring reality .
Are you seriously disagreeing with the truth; the facts? Are you saying all $20 trillion in debt is the fault of Obama? This is what I mean you lack the ability to think critically. You response is proof to that.
Obama did create half that debt and a record number of wars. He should forfeit his Nobel Peace prize.
Exactly what war did Obama "create"? Also, ask yourself - Why was the debt created?
Let's say Obama didn't spend a dime more that what Bush was planning - that alone would add $3.2 trillion to the debt.
Had federal receipts remained constant (they normally grow year to year), a conservative estimate of receipts lost is $2.1 trillion. That adds directly to the national debt
Had there not been a recession, then the debt would have been roughly $1.3 trillion less.
There are many more factors that ANY president would have faced which increased the debt apart from any action THAT president may have taken. I won't try to calculate that and just stick with the $7.6 trillion I have now. That leaves a maximum of $2.4 trillion attributable to Obama.
Now we have what Obama did to keep America out of a Depression and dig us out of the GOP recession. Estimates of the Bush - Obama stimulus/bailout program range from $1.8 trillion to $2.8 trillion, depending on how you count it.
So, please tell me how much of the $10 trillion increase in national debt is attributable to things OTHER THAN the GOP recession.
I am not for federal Government left or right wings of the same scavenger bird.
I thought nobody could ever be worst than Bush for debt and war.
I was wrong.
Countries bombed: Obama 7, Bush 4."
Bush: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia.
Obama: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria.
It's no secret that the majority of Americans runs on debt, U.S. adults owe money in some way, shape, or form. They owe on mortgages, student debt, credit card debt, auto, and medical debt, the No. 1 cause of personal bankruptcy. As everything is getting worst for debt in American. Then Trump comes along and keeps increasing national debt. How in doG name will American recover. Don't count on the millennials generation, they are the most likely to be in debt without inheritance.
There are a few countries doubling and tripling US economy growth. US is at 2.2 GOP, unless US can double that number, they can't begin to pay back the national debt.
Unless the Government is overthrown your slaves for life.
Kennedy had the highest annal GDP growth 5.5
From each President afterwards the GDP has progressively gotten worst down to Bush and Obama near 2.00.
Trump who promises the best economy.Is in the late winter of the 80 year cycle of the worst economy and social crises since deep depression/world war 2.
Approx 80 year before that Civil War. Approx 80 years before Civil war the American Revolution and so on.
Presidents do not have control of the economy. The power of the People do. The real owners of this country don't give a dam about you. They don't care at all... at all. It's only going to get worst.
by Scott Belford 4 days ago
Having taken 10 years to publish my first book, "A Short History of Significant American Recessions, Depressions, and Panics" (Authorhouse, 2019), I am starting on a second whose working title is "Conservatism in America: History and Impact". This will be a Hub as well.One...
by Scott Belford 9 months ago
Commonly, those people who call themselves conservative hold socialism and communism as being the end-state of liberalism. I would argue that there is nothing "liberal" about socialism and communism. Think about it, the fundamental engine behind both is the need for the...
by crankalicious 6 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.
by Jack Lee 19 months ago
In discussions here on HubPages, a common topic arises when discussing the media. In most circles, people believes what they read and see on TV. That is why we Conservatives don't trust the media for providing the truth...because we know who we are and the media is mis characterizing conservatives...
by seanorjohn 8 years ago
Do you think a conservative government would lead us back into a recession?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago
What are the main misperceptions that Conservatives have about Liberals and why?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|