The economy

tboonpickens

Heisman
Sep 19, 2001
20,066
35,572
113
Sleepy Don having trouble staying awake during this farce of a press gathering about the economy.

It's amazing how he gets a pass for doing this crap all the time. You can clearly see from the angles that he's not looking down to read something or praying. He's just barely hanging on at lunchtime.



 
  • Haha
Reactions: dpic73

TigerGrowls

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
44,325
33,435
113
It's been repeatedly proven that the economy does better under Democrats, in fact, 10 of the last 11 recessions began under Republican administrations while job growth and GDP growth have been notably greater under Democrats. Of course, the covid related inflation under Biden soured the opinions of many, though at the end of his term, he had maintained a historically long period of low unemployment of ~ 4%, very good GDP growth and inflation had fallen significantly and was trending down.

So if your point is that things would have also gotten worse if the Democrats had maintained power, I disagree. Trump blew it due to his tariffs, mass deportations and absurb spending for ICE and foreign wars....none of which would have happened otherwise. So don't ask what the Democrat plan would be when it was already working.
Half baked falsehoods imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
5,552
4,034
113
Did you mean better because that's what I believe, yes.
of course it is....but maybe we could agree that at least under democrats as well as now, we would have greater emphasis on eliminating fossil fuels and as a result would have higher gas prices and higher prices on derivative products made with fossil fuels.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not ecstatic about the state of our economy. But right now what seems to be a driving force holding it back are the elements I listed..mainly fossil fuels. Yes, there are others like tariffs, but high gas prices flow into everything. And, since Democrat platforms usually play into reducing fossil fuels, it seems likely that we'd have similar, maybe not as extreme, supply/demand problems.
 

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
24,098
22,630
113
of course it is....but maybe we could agree that at least under democrats as well as now, we would have greater emphasis on eliminating fossil fuels and as a result would have higher gas prices and higher prices on derivative products made with fossil fuels.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not ecstatic about the state of our economy. But right now what seems to be a driving force holding it back are the elements I listed..mainly fossil fuels. Yes, there are others like tariffs, but high gas prices flow into everything. And, since Democrat platforms usually play into reducing fossil fuels, it seems likely that we'd have similar, maybe not as extreme, supply/demand problems.

The Green New Scam.

Imagine if we had been like Germany…… whoooa boy we would be in a world of hurt.


Green new scam was one of the worst policy proposals in history.
 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
5,552
4,034
113
The Green New Scam.

Imagine if we had been like Germany…… whoooa boy we would be in a world of hurt.


Green new scam was one of the worst policy proposals in history.
there's room in the energy sphere for renewables. But, the government shouldn't be funding them any more than the provide subsidies to oil, coal or other energy sources. And, IMO, the subsidies should be proportional to the energy created. It makes little sense to provide high subsidies to the technology that produces minimal energy.

Obama had it right...all of the above for energy
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,247
4,257
113
there's room in the energy sphere for renewables. But, the government shouldn't be funding them any more than the provide subsidies to oil, coal or other energy sources. And, IMO, the subsidies should be proportional to the energy created. It makes little sense to provide high subsidies to the technology that produces minimal energy.

Obama had it right...all of the above for energy
Obama had an all of the above strategy but it included subsidies for green energy.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,247
4,257
113
of course it is....but maybe we could agree that at least under democrats as well as now, we would have greater emphasis on eliminating fossil fuels and as a result would have higher gas prices and higher prices on derivative products made with fossil fuels.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not ecstatic about the state of our economy. But right now what seems to be a driving force holding it back are the elements I listed..mainly fossil fuels. Yes, there are others like tariffs, but high gas prices flow into everything. And, since Democrat platforms usually play into reducing fossil fuels, it seems likely that we'd have similar, maybe not as extreme, supply/demand problems.
Delete
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Chumpsky

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,247
4,257
113
The Green New Scam.

Imagine if we had been like Germany…… whoooa boy we would be in a world of hurt.


Green new scam was one of the worst policy proposals in history.
I'm not a climate denier but alarmists lose all credibility when every single apocalyptic forecast fails to materialize.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls

tigres88

All-American
Aug 7, 2022
2,234
5,828
113
It's interesting that you weren't concerned about high gas prices under Biden, you didn't give Trump credit for low gas prices, and now you're suddenly concerned about gas prices going back up. It almost like your position is based entirely on Trump hate.
Dude get a new schtick. Ned voted for Trump, has often defended his policies, and leans right.

Most criticism of this administration is not just "trump hate" and your inability to see this shows a considerable amount of intellectual limitability.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,247
4,257
113
Dude get a new schtick. Ned voted for Trump, has often defended his policies, and leans right.

Most criticism of this administration is not just "trump hate" and your inability to see this shows a considerable amount of intellectual limitability.
My mistake. My comment was intended for Dpic who does nothing but search for anti Trump anti republican stuff to post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls

dpic73

Heisman
Jul 27, 2005
29,792
21,974
113
My mistake. My comment was intended for Dpic who does nothing but search for anti Trump anti republican stuff to post.
What is this strawman you're accusing me of? Can you show me where I mentioned gas prices in the conversation I was having with Ned?

But while we're on the subject, gas went to $5.00 under Biden due to a war another country started. Gas is high now because of a war that Trump started, a war that he promised his supporters he would not start.
 

Dadar

All-Conference
Dec 21, 2003
4,496
3,393
113
The stock market, economy and distribution of wealth

These events in different combinations make it virtually impossible for the equity markets to fail.

The Bretton Woods Agreement was an international monetary and financial framework established in July 1944 to regulate the international monetary system after World War II. It created a system of fixed exchange rates, where the U.S. dollar was pegged to gold and other currencies were pegged to the dollar, and led to the creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

On August 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon unilaterally ended the direct convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold, terminating the Bretton Woods system. Known as the "Nixon Shock," this policy (Executive Order 11615) stopped foreign governments from exchanging dollars for U.S. gold reserves, shifting the world to a floating fiat currency system to combat inflation and foreign gold runs.

In response to the 2008 financial crisis, the US government enacted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). TARP was a $700 billion bailout package that aimed to stabilize the financial system, restart the economy, and prevent foreclosures. TARP funds were allocated to various programs, including

Quantitative easing (QE) is an unconventional monetary policy where central banks, such as the Federal Reserve, electronically create new money to purchase government bonds and other financial assets from the private sector. The primary purpose is to inject liquidity into the financial system, drive down long-term interest rates, and stimulate borrowing and economic activity when traditional rate-cutting methods are exhausted.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,247
4,257
113
The stock market, economy and distribution of wealth

These events in different combinations make it virtually impossible for the equity markets to fail.

The Bretton Woods Agreement was an international monetary and financial framework established in July 1944 to regulate the international monetary system after World War II. It created a system of fixed exchange rates, where the U.S. dollar was pegged to gold and other currencies were pegged to the dollar, and led to the creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

On August 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon unilaterally ended the direct convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold, terminating the Bretton Woods system. Known as the "Nixon Shock," this policy (Executive Order 11615) stopped foreign governments from exchanging dollars for U.S. gold reserves, shifting the world to a floating fiat currency system to combat inflation and foreign gold runs.

In response to the 2008 financial crisis, the US government enacted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). TARP was a $700 billion bailout package that aimed to stabilize the financial system, restart the economy, and prevent foreclosures. TARP funds were allocated to various programs, including

Quantitative easing (QE) is an unconventional monetary policy where central banks, such as the Federal Reserve, electronically create new money to purchase government bonds and other financial assets from the private sector. The primary purpose is to inject liquidity into the financial system, drive down long-term interest rates, and stimulate borrowing and economic activity when traditional rate-cutting methods are exhausted.
You can blame Nixon but most other developed nations have done similar things. IMO that's the only reason the USA has remained as strong as it has. If the USA devalues their currency by 10% and other countries do the same the dollar remains just as strong.

I thought $700 billion was insane at the time. I think that gave the government confidence that they could keep doing it in even larger amounts. One thing that stands out to me is that even though some banks failed most repaid their loans with interest and the government actually made a profit. But government spending never went back down.
 

dpic73

Heisman
Jul 27, 2005
29,792
21,974
113
Are you serious? That's pretty much all he does. I've never seen him debate the issues on their merits.
This refrain from you is getting tired. I was literally debating issues in this very thread before you interjected with an accusation about something I wasn't even arguing. Beyond that, this is a message board where we can post what we want and that means some people won't like it. Sorry if that bothers you but I will continue doing it my way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tigres88

LafayetteBear

All-American
Nov 30, 2009
33,431
8,596
113
The best economy in my lifetime was during the last 6 Reagan years when the top tax rate was 28%. It continued to be good under Clinton even though he raised the top rate to 39.6%. He also lowered the capital gains rate and introduced Roth IRA & Child Tax Credit.
Clinton was and is a weasel, particularly with respect to his pursuit of female companionship, but he was and is very smart, and he knew enough not to get in the way of a thriving economy. His economic numbers (i.e., the economic numbers during his term in office) were phenomenal. As is the case with any president, much of that had nothing to do with him, but he managed to avoid hindering a positive economy. At Cabinet meetings, his first question for almost any policy decision was apparently "What does the Street [i.e., Wall Street] think about this?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
5,552
4,034
113
Clinton was and is a weasel, particularly with respect to his pursuit of female companionship, but he was and is very smart, and he knew enough not to get in the way of a thriving economy. His economic numbers (i.e., the economic numbers during his term in office) were phenomenal. As is the case with any president, much of that had nothing to do with him, but he managed to avoid hindering a positive economy. At Cabinet meetings, his first question for almost any policy decision was apparently "What does the Street [i.e., Wall Street] think about this?"
always said, Clinton was a good president, you just didn't want your daughter to work for him
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,247
4,257
113
always said, Clinton was a good president, you just didn't want your daughter to work for him
A woman worked for me whose daughter was a Whitehouse correspondent for the Associated Press. She often brought in photos including those of her daughter with Clinton at the Whitehouse Correspondent's Dinner and I always joked and said I wouldn't let my daughter near him.

I agree that he was a pretty good president. His sexual antics in the Oval Office were over the top but to be honest I was able to get past it as long as he wasn't screwing me or the country. He lied under oath about it but the impeachment was a waste of time.
 

Dadar

All-Conference
Dec 21, 2003
4,496
3,393
113

nytigerfan

Heisman
Dec 9, 2004
10,316
13,289
102
I wonder why? housing unaffordable, higher prices for fertilizer which will men higher food prices down the line, higher gas prices, ......

I wonder though what the democrat plan is...they want to eliminate fossil fuels which has the effect of higher gas prices, higher fertilizer costs, higher housing costs..

Let's face it we're screwed. It just depends on which party you want to screw us...

I dont think the dems want to "eliminate" fossil fuels. They want to reduce our dependency on them. I don't see how anyone could look at our current geopolitical situation and not think that that's a good idea. China has been doing that, which is why they are not being hurt as badly as they could be right now with the loss of Iranian oil.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,247
4,257
113
I dont think the dems want to "eliminate" fossil fuels. They want to reduce our dependency on them. I don't see how anyone could look at our current geopolitical situation and not think that that's a good idea. China has been doing that, which is why they are not being hurt as badly as they could be right now with the loss of Iranian oil.
Why do we need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels when we have a reasonably abundant supply?

Dems pushed through a lot of costly incentives for green energy. Trump got rid of a lot of them but regulations remain in many blue states. NY requires net zero emissions by 2035. They've even outlawed gas hot water heaters and pizza ovens. West coast states still do the carbon credit thing. That's why energy costs are higher in those states.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,247
4,257
113
I wonder why? housing unaffordable, higher prices for fertilizer which will men higher food prices down the line, higher gas prices, ......

I wonder though what the democrat plan is...they want to eliminate fossil fuels which has the effect of higher gas prices, higher fertilizer costs, higher housing costs..

Let's face it we're screwed. It just depends on which party you want to screw us...
Housing, groceries, health insurance, etc became unaffordable well before Trump took office. He just gets the blame because he's the guy currently in office.
  • The food-at-home (grocery store or supermarket food purchases) CPI was unchanged from February 2026 to March 2026 and was 1.9 percent higher than in March 2025.
Food Price Outlook - Summary Findings | Economic Research Service
 
  • Haha
Reactions: yoshi121374

nytigerfan

Heisman
Dec 9, 2004
10,316
13,289
102
Why do we need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels when we have a reasonably abundant supply?

Dems pushed through a lot of costly incentives for green energy. Trump got rid of a lot of them but regulations remain in many blue states. NY requires net zero emissions by 2035. They've even outlawed gas hot water heaters and pizza ovens. West coast states still do the carbon credit thing. That's why energy costs are higher in those states.

Have you not been paying attention the last few months? Dependence on a form of energy that we need from others is not ideal. This is why China has been able to sustain a massive hit to its oil supply this year. They adopted a long-term vision of diversifying their energy supply.

The second part of your post is not worth debating. I - like most educated people - believe that we are affecting the climate of our planet. You dont. There is no point.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,247
4,257
113
Have you not been paying attention the last few months? Dependence on a form of energy that we need from others is not ideal. This is why China has been able to sustain a massive hit to its oil supply this year. They adopted a long-term vision of diversifying their energy supply.

The second part of your post is not worth debating. I - like most educated people - believe that we are affecting the climate of our planet. You dont. There is no point.
1) I'm not a complete climate denier but virtually every apocalyptic forecast has been wrong.

2) Are you proposing significantly higher energy prices and more government debt by forcing net zero policies & subsidies?

I'm an all of the above person. Let the best & most economical to prevail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatpiggy

LafayetteBear

All-American
Nov 30, 2009
33,431
8,596
113
Why do we need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels when we have a reasonably abundant supply?

Dems pushed through a lot of costly incentives for green energy. Trump got rid of a lot of them but regulations remain in many blue states. NY requires net zero emissions by 2035. They've even outlawed gas hot water heaters and pizza ovens. West coast states still do the carbon credit thing. That's why energy costs are higher in those states.
1. Fossil Fuels are a non-renewable resource. Drilling deeper or in remote locations for crude oil becomes ever more expensive as well.
2. Dependency on foreign crude oil can be highly problematic for our country and our economy. That was proven in the 1973 Arab oil embargo, and more recently with the Strait of Hormuz closing.
3. Fossil fuels by definition do not burn clean. And procuring them can be highly destructive to the environment. Huge amounts of water are used for fracking, and the "water" that remains after fracking is heavily contaminated. Solar and wind power are not perfectly green, but they are renewable and will be getting greener as solar and wind technology improve.

Trump is out there trying to subsidize coal. Coal!! It's like trying to prop up Bernie (from "Weekend at Bernie's"). A wasted and futile effort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

TigerGrowls

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
44,325
33,435
113
1. Fossil Fuels are a non-renewable resource. Drilling deeper or in remote locations for crude oil becomes ever more expensive as well.
2. Dependency on foreign crude oil can be highly problematic for our country and our economy. That was proven in the 1973 Arab oil embargo, and more recently with the Strait of Hormuz closing.
3. Fossil fuels by definition do not burn clean. And procuring them can be highly destructive to the environment. Huge amounts of water are used for fracking, and the "water" that remains after fracking is heavily contaminated. Solar and wind power are not perfectly green, but they are renewable and will be getting greener as solar and wind technology improve.

Trump is out there trying to subsidize coal. Coal!! It's like trying to prop up Bernie (from "Weekend at Bernie's"). A wasted and futile effort.
Abiotic oil bear.
 

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
24,098
22,630
113
This economy can not withstand oil at $107 a barrel. I significantly reduced my equity holdings. Will look to reenter at a better point.

1777485515319.png