SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> An inconvenient truth
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1767101161

Message started by WebsterMark on 12/30/25 at 05:26:00

Title: An inconvenient truth
Post by WebsterMark on 12/30/25 at 05:26:00

The U.S. economy is growing fast—4.3% in the third quarter, the Commerce Department reported last week. But a majority of Americans in almost every recent poll disapprove of President Trump’s economic leadership. He isn’t the first president to face such a disjunction. President Clinton did before his re-election in 1996, when views on the economy were negative even though key economic indicators were generally positive.

The liberal economist Joseph Stiglitz had agreed with the populist GOP presidential candidate Pat Buchanan that most of the jobs being created were downscale—burger flippers and the like. Challenged, Mr. Stiglitz agreed to do a study, and found that higher-paying jobs like software engineers were being minted. But Mr. Clinton’s team had to get the Treasury and other departments to acknowledge the good news. They believed then that only one million jobs would be created in the next four years; in fact, the second term saw about seven million new jobs.

FREE EXPRESSION NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Daily perspectives on culture and politics from voices that matter.
Subscribe

Early in 1996, Mr. Clinton assembled his economic advisers in the Roosevelt Room. They were told there was one necessary condition for winning the election: a good economy. His aides (including one of us, Mr. Penn) inserted a paragraph in his State of the Union address that called out, “Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades,” and prepared everyone to convince the press he wasn’t blowing smoke. The technological revolution was creating strong growth and new jobs. Within six months, the country’s mood swung positive.

Mr. Trump faces a remarkably similar situation. Technological change, lower taxes, reduced regulation and lower interest rates are improving economic conditions. Unemployment is 4.6%, higher than in the first Trump term but lower than in the Obama years. Growth is faster than during the first Trump term, the stock market is booming, and retirement funds are growing. Inflation is still too high, but it has come down by about two-thirds from its peak under President Biden and lower than under Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Trump needs to explain his strategy for the economy in clear, unambiguous terms: Cut taxes and red tape to stimulate business investment, lower energy prices by cutting regulations, use tariffs to get the U.S. better trade terms, stoke innovation and investment in artificial intelligence, and reduce waste in government, especially needless energy subsidies and welfare fraud.

In the past few months, studies have bolstered his case. One, from the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, showed that none of the dire predictions on tariffs came true; the other, from MIT Sloan School of Management, that AI tends to create jobs on balance. The president has to frame his economic policy as a new opportunity agenda—getting government out of the way to let innovation flourish and bring down interest rates and prices.

As Mr. Clinton did in 1996, Mr. Trump can use the State of the Union address to lay out the facts about the economy with experts ready to back him up. After that, it will likely take months and some continued good numbers, and the mood of the country just might turn around.

Mr. Penn was a pollster and adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton, 1995-2008. He is chairman of the Harris Poll and CEO of Stagwell Inc. Mr. Stein served as New York City Council president, 1986-93.

Title: Re: An inconvenient truth
Post by Needles on 12/30/25 at 05:59:47

TLDR. And the economy sucks for everyone that isn't a corporation or already rich.

::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: An inconvenient truth
Post by Eegore on 12/30/25 at 07:00:23

How does the economy impact people that are Corporations just because Needles says they are? Or billionaires? How does the 4.3% in the third quarter impact them?

Title: Re: An inconvenient truth
Post by Needles on 12/30/25 at 07:10:30

What I'm saying is the economic figures come from the advantages Trump has given the 1%, and NOT the general population.

But you knew that; you're just trying to distract from reality with Trump lies.

::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: An inconvenient truth
Post by Eegore on 12/30/25 at 07:28:34

But you knew that; you're just trying to distract from reality with Trump lies.

I never lied about people's economic status here, but you have multiple times.

Trump's economic policy does apply primarily to the highest 20% of earners, mostly through tax benefits. It is definitely not the way I would do it. The difference here is you make sh!t up and I don't. Not one thing I have said is a blatant dishonest statement about the current economy, if anything I have said Trump is disconnected and unable to accurately assess how his actions impact the majority of Americans.

Title: Re: An inconvenient truth
Post by Needles on 12/30/25 at 08:26:11

What have I said about the economy was "made up"? The only inaccuracies are from Trump et al.

8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

Title: Re: An inconvenient truth
Post by WebsterMark on 12/30/25 at 08:31:11

Title: Re: An inconvenient truth
Post by Needles on 12/30/25 at 08:47:02

Trickle down has been shown to be false. That has been a fact for decades. If you benefitted from Trump's fiasco, how many employees did you give raises?

::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: An inconvenient truth
Post by Eegore on 12/30/25 at 08:50:47

What have I said about the economy was "made up"? The only inaccuracies are from Trump et al.

I didn't say you made up anything about the economy. I said you lied about the economic status of other people. As in you make sh!t up about how much money people make, or that they are a "Corporation" or that "All" humans in a specific profession are "Corporations". You made that up.

Title: Re: An inconvenient truth
Post by Eegore on 12/30/25 at 08:53:50

Benefit to the top 20% is nonetheless a benefit to the lower 80%.

I have significantly financially benefit recently because of the advantages for the 20%.

Trickle down economics is valid. In fact, you could say it is essential.

I think the problem is the perception behind the ever growing income gap, and the fact that money to me results in more control than money to a guy who gives me a portion of that money.

Trump policies on business growth are more valid in regard to trickle down income than tax breaks for humans already in the highest income bracket.

Title: Re: An inconvenient truth
Post by Needles on 12/30/25 at 09:01:16

1F3F3D35283F5A0 wrote:

Wrong argument, doofus. Move on. That horse is dead.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: An inconvenient truth
Post by Eegore on 12/30/25 at 09:18:01

Wrong argument, doofus. Move on. That horse is dead.

I'm just asking how this economy impacts people you falsely claim fall into the following categories that you brought up: And the economy sucks for everyone that isn't a corporation or already rich.

It must not suck for any Rancher anywhere in the US if we use your logic. In general agriculture loses income under this type of economic structure, however there is in my opinion an over-dependency on government aid in some but not all agriculture systems.

Or anyone with employees outside the US is a "self admitted" 1% according to you. So this lady I know that pays 4 people in two different countries to weave fabric is a billionaire. So Trump's tax policy must be an outstanding benefit for her, since having employees outside the US is a self admission of being a 1% income earner if we use your logic.

While it may be true that the highest income earners and major Corporations are the only real beneficiaries of Trump tax policy - you place those labels indiscriminately on pretty much anyone. Someone says something you don't like, you just label them however you want, like pedophile for instance.

Title: Re: An inconvenient truth
Post by Serowbot on 12/30/25 at 10:01:36

635156474051467955465F340 wrote:

Trickle down economics is valid. In fact, you could say it is essential.

Trickle down is getting pissed on
I get this bucket and you will thank for this thimble

Title: Re: An inconvenient truth
Post by WebsterMark on 12/30/25 at 10:50:33

None of us have ever worked for a poor guy so obviously trickle down is reality. If you don’t like the size of your bucket compared to the other guy, go do something about it.

Title: Re: An inconvenient truth
Post by Eegore on 12/30/25 at 11:10:54

None of us have ever worked for a poor guy so obviously trickle down is reality. If you don’t like the size of your bucket compared to the other guy, go do something about it.

Nah, it's better to tell other people what they are allowed to have.

Title: Re: An inconvenient truth
Post by thumperclone on 12/30/25 at 12:23:53

None of us have ever worked for a poor guy [/quote]
wrong again zippy

Title: Re: An inconvenient truth
Post by Needles on 12/30/25 at 12:55:14

Ima jest leave this here...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-brutally-fact-checked-by-truth-socials-new-ai-tool/

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D