Home

S/O Trump: How Have Trump's Policies Impacted Your Life?
1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


wiki




 
 
 


Post  Sun, Dec 01 2019, 11:29 pm
[Note: This thread was split from the Trump thread about the morality of the president and other politicians. Please stay on topic — digressions about President Trump's personal morals, fitness for the job, or impeachment do NOT belong on this thread. — Rubber Ducky as Mod]
small bean wrote:
How has trump impacted your life negatively?

I dont know nothing changed for me personally, except the fact that I paid less taxes.


Jews killed in shuls in America has impacted me negatively. I don't blame Trump for them directly, but they are a symptoms of the times we live in now. (The right-wing media dude who has been calling impeachment a "Jew Coup" has White House credentials and has asked questions at press briefings. Far too little has been done to combat anti-Semitism on the rise from the left and from the right.)

I wish that some of the 400 bills waiting in the Republican Senate would be passed, including some of the common sense gun control proposals. Again, not really Trump but McConnell to blame there, but not pleased with it.

The children separated from their parents at the border do not impact my life directly, but I am ashamed that my country does this.

Deregulation of climate/environmental policies and leaving the Paris Climate Accords probably will impact my life in ways that I won't be able to measure.

The federal deficit would be looking better if the super-wealthy were paying higher taxes. I hope that my children and me will be getting our social security one day. (I complained about the deficit a lot under Obama also. But the economy is so good now. We really have no excuse about the deficit these days.)

I wish that the infrastructure bill would ever happen! My life is negatively impacted without it.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 


Post  Sun, Dec 01 2019, 11:37 pm
wiki wrote:
Jews killed in shuls in America has impacted me negatively. I don't blame Trump for them directly, but they are a symptoms of the times we live in now. (The right-wing media dude who has been calling impeachment a "Jew Coup" has White House credentials and has asked questions at press briefings. Far too little has been done to combat anti-Semitism on the rise from the left and from the right.)

I wish that some of the 400 bills waiting in the Republican Senate would be passed, including some of the common sense gun control proposals. Again, not really Trump but McConnell to blame there, but not pleased with it.

The children separated from their parents at the border do not impact my life directly, but I am ashamed that my country does this.

Deregulation of climate/environmental policies and leaving the Paris Climate Accords probably will impact my life in ways that I won't be able to measure.

The federal deficit would be looking better if the super-wealthy were paying higher taxes. I hope that my children and me will be getting our social security one day. (I complained about the deficit a lot under Obama also. But the economy is so good now. We really have no excuse about the deficit these days.)

I wish that the infrastructure bill would ever happen! My life is negatively impacted without it.


First of all attacks have nothing to do with trump or right wing media.

The children separated from the boarder was way worse under Obama and started then. So this is not a trump problem. Everything trump has done to try to make it better including funding for bosrder detention centers was shut down by the Democrats.

The federal deficit will never get better unless you cut spending. If you raise taxes on the wealthy, people will lose their jobs. The fact that the deficit keeps climbing is because we keep spending too much not because we collect too little. The more we collect the more we will spend.

The Paris climate accords actually dont show any improvement. The biggest climate contributors is china, who is not cutting anything. The us cut more than every country in the accords. Allowing a free market instead of trying to control things is the best way to cut emissions..

The Democrats again dont want infrastructure change. Trump has tried more than once.

If you want the deficit to change, you need to lobby for better spending. You can't elect people who want to give you free everything and expect the deficit to go down, no matter how much tax is collected it won't work
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 10:40 am
The thread has moved on a lot just since last night, but I needed to respond to small bean's treatment of my "ways Trump has worsened my life."

small bean wrote:
First of all attacks have nothing to do with trump or right wing media.


You can disagree if you want, but the rise of Trump has featured an emboldened alt-right. He has fed the growth of these Internet fringes and has normalized some of their media personalities (see the "Jew Coup" guy at the press briefings). I don't think Trump directly caused shootings in shuls. I do think that they would not have happened under President GW Bush or under a President Hillary Clinton. Because, in fact, they never happened under any previous president. Of course, this is speculating. I know I cannot convince you. But my association of these crimes as a negative of the Trump era is legitimate, even if you disagree. (Note that other forms of hate crimes committed by far-right white nationalists are up as well. The El Paso shooting of the Mexicans who are an "invasion" does seem directly inspired by Trump rhetoric.)

Quote:
The children separated from the boarder was way worse under Obama and started then. So this is not a trump problem. Everything trump has done to try to make it better including funding for bosrder detention centers was shut down by the Democrats.


Obama detained unaccompanied children, but did not separate parents from their children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....ation Find me proof otherwise.

Quote:
The federal deficit will never get better unless you cut spending. If you raise taxes on the wealthy, people will lose their jobs. The fact that the deficit keeps climbing is because we keep spending too much not because we collect too little. The more we collect the more we will spend.


I would love to see cuts to discretionary spending like military spending, and smart redesign of entitlements appeals to me also! But the fact is that your logic about the economy, while it makes sense, does not always match historical realities. Sometimes tax cuts and budget cuts produce the results you claim they will. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes major tax cuts are devastating to the deficit (See GW Bush, Trump). Sometimes high taxes on the wealthy do not restrict job growth (See Eisenhower!!), and sometimes we can reach a surplus without major budget cuts (see Clinton--spending went down because fewer people needed handouts). I don't claim that there is a simple answer to the question of revenue, spending, and the economy. I will say that America's wealthy pay FAR less than the wealthy of other countries, and far less than America's wealthy did in other historical eras, and the evidence that this benefits the world overall is very small. You are welcome to disagree, but my desire to raise taxes on the wealthy and balance the deficit (without any concern that it will wreck the economy) is also legitimate.

Quote:
The Paris climate accords actually dont show any improvement. The biggest climate contributors is china, who is not cutting anything. The us cut more than every country in the accords. Allowing a free market instead of trying to control things is the best way to cut emissions..


Find any proof that emissions standards are improved by unregulating the market. I've never heard that idea before and it sounds incorrect. Regulating and protecting the environment is a classic "public good," a good that if we all pursued individual rationality, we would result in ruining, which is collective irrationality. Political scientists for a century have recognized that this is the classic situation that requires government. That's why we've had national parks for over a century. The free market can ruin environments.

Quote:
The Democrats again don't want infrastructure change. Trump has tried more than once.


Honestly, infrastructure is something we desperately need, and both parties want it, but neither side wants to give the other party a victory with it. Both parties need to grow up about infrastructure. But Trump is a builder, and I really thought that he would try harder on infrastructure. The running joke around the White House press corps is that every week is "infrastructure week." I was hoping Trump would outline more detail to his proposals here. There isn't much.

Quote:
If you want the deficit to change, you need to lobby for better spending. You can't elect people who want to give you free everything and expect the deficit to go down, no matter how much tax is collected it won't work


This is a nice theory. But in Obama's second term, the deficit did decrease, dramatically. It decreased dramatically under Clinton. It rose dramatically under George W. Bush and it is rising dramatically under Trump.

I'm not claiming that my economic policies are Torah min Hashamayim. But we all need more humility when it comes to the economy. The best theories are wrong 49 percent of the time.

Which is why I support higher taxes on the rich and budget reduction for the military, and smart redesign of the entitlements.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 10:45 am
wiki wrote:
The thread has moved on a lot just since last night, but I needed to respond to small bean's treatment of my "ways Trump has worsened my life."

This is a nice theory. But in Obama's second term, the deficit did decrease, dramatically. It decreased dramatically under Clinton. It rose dramatically under George W. Bush and it is rising dramatically under Trump.

I'm not claiming that my economic policies are Torah min Hashamayim. But we all need more humility when it comes to the economy. The best theories are wrong 49 percent of the time.

Which is why I support higher taxes on the rich and budget reduction for the military, and smart redesign of the entitlements.


How do we split to a new thread. I want to respond to each point. But don't want it to get lost here?
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 3:07 pm
[quote]Obama detained unaccompanied children, but did not separate parents from their children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....ation Find me proof otherwise.

Images from 2014 of children dententions separated in 2014 https://qz.com/1291470/photos-.....2014/

This was told to Wolf Blitzer by an Obama oficial “When President Obama separated children from their families, Wolf, or from adults, Wolf, it was for their protection. It was if there was a risk of trafficking or other kind of harm that might have been incurred,” Vinograd said during a discussion of family separations. “But even if he did do that, why is Donald Trump saying that two wrongs make a right? Again, Obama wasn’t wrong, but so he’s saying that because something happened under President Obama, he’s repeating it and upping the ante. That’s an incredibly poor excuse. He’s systemized that inhumane treatment that, again, Obama was doing to protect the children.” There is no proof in this that Obama was doing it to protect children as the senate finding found and reported in the NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0......html

Second of all Trump does not allow separation anymore of families

Trump ended the policy of family separation and replaced it with a policy of family detention.

He signed an executive order that kept the zero-tolerance policy in place — but added, "It is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources." It did provide an exception for when authorities believe keeping the family together would be harmful for the child.

At the end of the day, I don't feel so bad because, do not use children as pawns. It should be dangerous to cross the boarder. Many of these children are not actually being separated from their parents, they are being used.

The best thing we can do is secure our boarders and have people immigrate through a legal process, which should be made easier. - That is what we need to do and I think Trump is for that, but is being stonewalled because unfortunately no one wants to give him a win.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 3:18 pm
Quote:
You can disagree if you want, but the rise of Trump has featured an emboldened alt-right. He has fed the growth of these Internet fringes and has normalized some of their media personalities (see the "Jew Coup" guy at the press briefings). I don't think Trump directly caused shootings in shuls. I do think that they would not have happened under President GW Bush or under a President Hillary Clinton. Because, in fact, they never happened under any previous president. Of course, this is speculating. I know I cannot convince you. But my association of these crimes as a negative of the Trump era is legitimate, even if you disagree. (Note that other forms of hate crimes committed by far-right white nationalists are up as well. The El Paso shooting of the Mexicans who are an "invasion" does seem directly inspired by Trump rhetoric.)


Do you blame Bernie Sanders for the congressional baseball game being shot up? Do you blame the left for Antifa?

The far right are not Trump fans. The altright only agrees with him on immigration everything else they disagree. They have been using Trump for legitimacy.

If you have read the manifestos of the shooters, you will see that almost all of them supported a democrat for president.

Antifa is a leftist group that has also carried out attacks. They support all democrats.

The attackers in brooklyn are also democrats and not right wing extreme groups. With a very radical left attacking Jews at every chance, again this has nothing to do with Trump.

There were a lot of police attacks in the Obama years, that was a result of Obama politicizing the police.

Clinton has said You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for. She has called for lack of civility and gave room for antifa. I'm sorry, but she would not have been able to prevent any of the attacks either. And she is not a peace maker. She would have continued what Obama started of pitting us against eachother.

I want to add that I don't think anyone is responsible for a shooting except the shooter. I don't believe that rhetoric is responsible for crime. Everyone of the mass shootings was done by someone unwell. The media chooses to give a platfrom to those that fit their agenda. There are a lot of shootings that get very little media attention, due to this. - I will write them up later, when I can check.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 3:28 pm
Quote:
I would love to see cuts to discretionary spending like military spending, and smart redesign of entitlements appeals to me also! But the fact is that your logic about the economy, while it makes sense, does not always match historical realities. Sometimes tax cuts and budget cuts produce the results you claim they will. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes major tax cuts are devastating to the deficit (See GW Bush, Trump). Sometimes high taxes on the wealthy do not restrict job growth (See Eisenhower!!), and sometimes we can reach a surplus without major budget cuts (see Clinton--spending went down because fewer people needed handouts). I don't claim that there is a simple answer to the question of revenue, spending, and the economy. I will say that America's wealthy pay FAR less than the wealthy of other countries, and far less than America's wealthy did in other historical eras, and the evidence that this benefits the world overall is very small. You are welcome to disagree, but my desire to raise taxes on the wealthy and balance the deficit (without any concern that it will wreck the economy) is also legitimate.


Total federal tax dollars collected in 2015 is $3.18 trillion. In 2017 $3.4 trillion. The fact is if you raise taxes, then it hurts the economy less people work. Lower taxes create a stronger economy.

I go for fair taxes, not the rich pays more. There is no reason the rich should carry a bigger burden.

There is no one running on balancing the budget. And Trump actually said he likes deficits and had no intention of balancing the budges - so no surprise there, that the deficit continues to grow.

If you want to start balancing the budge, you need someone who will cut spending to match the projected collected amount. You can't just raise taxes and expect the deficit to go down. If we make a 70% tax on the rich, we are still only talking about $200billion. It's not enough and will hurt the economy.

Step 1 is to make sure you have a healthy economy, so that most of us can contribute to the income taxes and therefor the government collects enough
Step 2 is to balance the budget, and that calls for state departments to close down. It calls for the government to stop subsides, It calls for social programs to be cut. Which of course, is political suicide so no one will do it.

There again is unfortunately, no one running on balancing a budget. Hillary was not planning on balancing the budget either.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 3:32 pm
Quote:
Honestly, infrastructure is something we desperately need, and both parties want it, but neither side wants to give the other party a victory with it. Both parties need to grow up about infrastructure. But Trump is a builder, and I really thought that he would try harder on infrastructure. The running joke around the White House press corps is that every week is "infrastructure week." I was hoping Trump would outline more detail to his proposals here. There isn't much.


I agree with you. But this is where electing good people to congress matters, really on the budget also.

If we continue to elect people who just want political shows and to keep promising and not deliver than we can't blame the president when nothing gets done.

Look at Obama's last 2 years, he couldn't do anything. The republican's did now allow for any of his agenda.

If you want trump ri do infrastructure, make sure to vote people who care, like Justin Amash, or Mike Lee or the like. People who are not there for show and excitement. People who do not sit outside the press green room for their minute of fame.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 3:43 pm
Quote:
Find any proof that emissions standards are improved by unregulating the market. I've never heard that idea before and it sounds incorrect. Regulating and protecting the environment is a classic "public good," a good that if we all pursued individual rationality, we would result in ruining, which is collective irrationality. Political scientists for a century have recognized that this is the classic situation that requires government. That's why we've had national parks for over a century. The free market can ruin environments.


How did we reduce emission. There was not formal program as far as I'm aware.

There was incentive for innovation - Which I believe you are against incentives

The United States is a world leader in reducing emissions. Between 2005 and 2017, U.S. net greenhouse gas emissions dropped 13 percent even as the U.S. economy grew by more than 19 percent, U.S. figures show.

We’ve unleashed our energy companies to innovate and compete, and our carbon emissions have declined dramatically - that is Trump's plan and it seems to be working.

That being said, climate change is a huge topic of itself and if you want to get into it - probably its own thread.

I'm not a climate denier, I'm just not one of those who thinks were all going to die in 10 years due to it either and I think that without any green new deals and parris accords america will reduce their carbon emissions.

I don't think China or Russia will do much. - and this is a global problem.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 3:55 pm
Deficits - the reason deficits went up under Bush was because of war.

Clinton did balance the budget.

The largest annual deficits ever were achieved by the Obama Administration in 2009, 2011, and 2010 when the deficits reached $1.413 trillion, $1.300 trillion, and $1.294 trillion, respectively. During Obama’s eight years of presidency, he accumulated deficits totaling $7.27 trillion. Over his eight years in office that averaged out to $909 billion annually.

President George W. Bush reported a leading annual budget deficit of $458.6 billion in 2008. George W. Bush reported budget deficits in seven of his eight years in office with total budget deficits of $2.134 trillion.

President Trump has continued the budget deficit trend. In 2017, the deficit was $665.4 billion followed by a deficit of $779.1 billion in 2018. Estimates show that the budget deficit under President Trump is expected to keep rising.

The first year is always on the previous president - because the budget was passed by the last administration.

If Trump continues to spend the way he has and wins a second term, he will out spend Obama by a trillion dollars. If he starts to cut, he can undercut Obama.

Interesting points though regarding debt - Under clinton first term debt grew by 15% and by the end of his second term it was up 36%. Under Bush first 2 years was up by 12% and then we have war and it goes up to 75%. Under Obama first 2 years, 33% and 84% by 2016. Trump 10% first 2 years and is projected to grow by 44%. This is important to look at.

Clinton was the only president in recent history, who paid down debt. He had a budget surplus.

Trump does not care and he ran on that, so it is not surprising. I'm not a fan of it either. I think though again, this is not all in the presidents hands (unless they try to pass something like ACA) a lot of this is in congress. The budget goes through congress. We need to elect people who care, and those people are usually not the popular ones.
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 9:41 pm
This probably would have been better if it were pasted into four different new threads, but oh well!

First to respond to the rhetoric and hate-based violence piece:

Bernie Sanders has nowhere near the platform, the media mouthpiece, or the cultural impact of the President. He just doesn't. He also doesn't advocate for punching out his opponents in the way that Trump does. For these reasons, I don't think that it's equivalent to suggest that he is as responsible for the Antifa thugs as Trump is for the rise of white nationalism.

I said before that my impression of Trump influencing our national culture in a way that has played a role in the rise of violent white nationalists is not water-tight proof, and I don't expect to ever convince people who don't want to see it...but my read is also a legitimate way to interpret our times. I don't need to convince you. You also don't need to convince me.
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 9:44 pm
On the border separations, I recommend checking out the non-partisan, well-sourced summary of, well, wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....olicy
(For the record, wikipedia is an excellent source on certain issues specifically because there are partisans of both political persuasions who work on editing it. Its coverage of Climate Change, for example, is a good one.)

Obama's administration occasionally separated children from their parents, only in particular cases of risk of violence to the child. His family separations were conducted very differently from those in the Trump administration, where they were official standard lechatchila policy. And you can read what wikipedia says about reports that child separations have not actually entirely ended.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 9:52 pm
wiki wrote:
This probably would have been better if it were pasted into four different new threads, but oh well!

First to respond to the rhetoric and hate-based violence piece:

Bernie Sanders has nowhere near the platform, the media mouthpiece, or the cultural impact of the President. He just doesn't. He also doesn't advocate for punching out his opponents in the way that Trump does. For these reasons, I don't think that it's equivalent to suggest that he is as responsible for the Antifa thugs as Trump is for the rise of white nationalism.

I said before that my impression of Trump influencing our national culture in a way that has played a role in the rise of violent white nationalists is not water-tight proof, and I don't expect to ever convince people who don't want to see it...but my read is also a legitimate way to interpret our times. I don't need to convince you. You also don't need to convince me.


I was trying bernie Sanders to the congressional shooting. The shooter was a Sanders fan.

I think its sign of our time that there is so much infighting. I don't think it is trump more than any other politician. There have been many prominent democrats that have called for violence against Republicans in the last few years. Why are they not to blame?

This rhetoric of pitting one against another started under obama and is not unique to trump.

Trump is not alt right. And the alt right does not really agree with him on anything except border control. Trump does not have an issue with immigrants, all his wives were immigrants. His issue is illegal immigrants, which is different than the alt right, who care because of race and superiority.
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 9:53 pm
On deficits and taxes, you say that "The fact is if you raise taxes, then it hurts the economy less people work. Lower taxes create a stronger economy."

There are no facts in the world of economics. If the economy worked in a purely predictable way, there would never be debates among schools of economists, and there would (almost) never be recessions either.

The world is complicated, and so is the economy. Care to explain why we weren't thrust into a huge recession in the 1950s under Eisenhower, when the highest tax brackets were paying 90 percent in income taxes? Why hasn't the Trump tax cut stimulated the economy so radically that tax revenues have risen just off of people's increased prosperity, as its boosters had claimed would happen?

I'm not attacking the tax cut, I'm just pointing out that economies don't operate predictably. Some believe in trickle-down economics; some believe in Keynesian economics. Each approach can point to historical examples where their theories worked. Each can point to historical examples where their opponents' approaches failed in epic fashion.

Bringing this back to a way in which Trump has worsened my life:

I don't complain about my tax cut. That was just fine for me. (Although I never did think I was paying too much in taxes anyway. Honestly.) But I do think that, since I don't trust any side's economists at all really, I'd rather see a balanced budget. It means that I want to see the wealthy pay more in taxes. And I want to see budget cuts.

Obama had a crazy deficit in the years of the Great Recession. It's not really tenable to balance a budget during a recession. He reined in the deficit pretty significantly in the years after that. Trump's deficit, considering the great economy we're in, is really not defensible.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 9:56 pm
wiki wrote:
On the border separations, I recommend checking out the non-partisan, well-sourced summary of, well, wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....olicy
(For the record, wikipedia is an excellent source on certain issues specifically because there are partisans of both political persuasions who work on editing it. Its coverage of Climate Change, for example, is a good one.)

Obama's administration occasionally separated children from their parents, only in particular cases of risk of violence to the child. His family separations were conducted very differently from those in the Trump administration, where they were official standard lechatchila policy. And you can read what wikipedia says about reports that child separations have not actually entirely ended.


This is not a fact. It depends who you ask from that time at the DHS.. the obama admin did not keep records so no one will ever know the truth.

The fact is though that they did release children to be trafficked and into unsafe situations. So whatever they did with these children, was still not good.

As I said I dont have a problem with it. Parents should feel that this is dangerous and can harm their kids.

I'm all for DNA testing to see who is really whos kid. I'm for separation of families. The process should be difficult. The harder it is the biggerdeterrent. I dont have a problem with legal immigration.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 10:01 pm
wiki wrote:
On deficits and taxes, you say that "The fact is if you raise taxes, then it hurts the economy less people work. Lower taxes create a stronger economy."

There are no facts in the world of economics. If the economy worked in a purely predictable way, there would never be debates among schools of economists, and there would (almost) never be recessions either.

The world is complicated, and so is the economy. Care to explain why we weren't thrust into a huge recession in the 1950s under Eisenhower, when the highest tax brackets were paying 90 percent in income taxes? Why hasn't the Trump tax cut stimulated the economy so radically that tax revenues have risen just off of people's increased prosperity, as its boosters had claimed would happen?

I'm not attacking the tax cut, I'm just pointing out that economies don't operate predictably. Some believe in trickle-down economics; some believe in Keynesian economics. Each approach can point to historical examples where their theories worked. Each can point to historical examples where their opponents' approaches failed in epic fashion.

Bringing this back to a way in which Trump has worsened my life:

I don't complain about my tax cut. That was just fine for me. (Although I never did think I was paying too much in taxes anyway. Honestly.) But I do think that, since I don't trust any side's economists at all really, I'd rather see a balanced budget. It means that I want to see the wealthy pay more in taxes. And I want to see budget cuts.

Obama had a crazy deficit in the years of the Great Recession. It's not really tenable to balance a budget during a recession. He reined in the deficit pretty significantly in the years after that. Trump's deficit, considering the great economy we're in, is really not defensible.


I'm not defending the deficit. But trump ran on a platform with a deficit. He said that he doesn't care. Unless he will cut somewhere there will be a deficit. Even if he raised taxes, he is still spending more than he would collect.

Really we are attributing to much to the president. The president while he signs the budget needs congress to work with him on his priorities.

If you want see real change, it is not just about the president, it is also about Congress. And the people we have been electing are not doing a good job..
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 10:06 pm
I really think we need to separate the powers. You can't blame obama for his last 2 years that nothing on his agenda was done (part of the reason the spending went down - that's why I'm a fan of government shut downs). It was not his fault he had no one to work with.

You have to look at congress and see that we dont elect people with an agenda. Most of them are sitting there playing some sort of game.

Why hasn't pelosi brought the bipartisan bill USMCA to the table? She has it since February. The fact is congress holds more responsibility than the president and we dont hold them accountable. That is really why nothing happens. We continue to elect, people who dont represent us.
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 10:09 pm
On the issue of climate, I never said that was against incentives or against innovation. I support both.

I only said that regulation of environment is a classic "public good," an objective whose attainment is a prisoners' dilemma. We all want a preserved environment, but that can only be attained if everyone cooperates. If people out there will defect instead of cooperating, everyone loses, so then there's no point in any one person choosing to cooperate. So then everyone defects, and the environment is ruined. And that's why we needed government regulation in the first place. It's also why government tend to build bridges and roads and other infrastructure; clean air and water are a form of infrastructure as well.

America's declines in carbon emissions are primarily due to many states using alternative energy sources to coal in powering their utilities. They should keep doing what they're doing. The actions of the Trump Administration are not very directed toward supporting this shift, though!

I have no idea if the Paris Accords are enough to stop us from all dying in ten years, but I do know that if America cannot lead on this issue, there is no chance that China and India will ever commit to improving their emissions either. If America stayed in the accords, I do think other countries could work to get the big Asian countries in line too at some point. Yes, maybe we'll all die anyway. I have no idea. But I'd rather have confidence that the president is working to do his best to fix things, instead of willfully ignoring the issue and probably making it worse (in the form of deregulating environmental rules for factories, advocating for the expansion of coal energy, and cutting back on Clean Air Act standards).

Again, I said from the start that I will never be able to actually measure the extent of Trump's contribution to worsening my life through Climate Change. (This, like the economy, is a complicated subject beyond mere humans' ability to predict cause and effect.) That said, I wish the president would listen to scientists in making decisions about this subject.
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 10:24 pm
So, in review:

--You don't think Trump is responsible for the current era of emboldened white nationalism, and for a public political rhetoric that hints at glorifying politics as a physical political fight. I think he has some share of the blame for this (I never said all the blame, or even most of the blame--just a share of the blame). I don't plan to convince you. You don't need to convince me. I think we're good on that topic.

--On the budget and the economy, I said that the deficit concerns me, especially because I only support big budget deficits during recessions. You argued that it doesn't bother you, and that it's really Congress's fault, not Trump's. Being that Trump had a big role in the tax cuts and in the military buildup, I disagree, but all in all I think we mostly agree on the facts here and simply disagree over whether deficits are a big deal. I think we're good on this topic also.

--On the border, we're up to "no one will know the truth" about what Obama might have done, and that you're fine with child separations at the border generally. I am super against them when they're the baseline border-crossing protocol, as they have been under Trump, and hundreds of children remain detained. We can agree to disagree here, but the facts are that the Obama administration policy was vastly different from the Trump administration policy.

--On climate, it's good that we both have the humility to realize that the planet might be toast, and this might happen no matter what we do. I'd still like to the see America lead the world in an effort to try to not all roast to death. Even if it's expensive, if it works, it's a super lot cheaper than the cost of us all roasting to death. And if it doesn't work and we sacrifice a great deal in our prosperity along the way--maybe it doesn't matter so much, because we'd all roast to death try or not.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Dec 02 2019, 10:25 pm
Which scientists? I believe he does listen to scientists just not the ones who are fear mongering. This fear mongering has been going on for decades at this point without any of the dire predictions coming true. There are scientists who are extreme on this issue on both spectrums.

Theres a lot of disagreement amongst scientists in regards to climate change. There are a good portion who were against the Paris accords.

I honestly dont know enough on this topic. I have read enough from both sides to know that it is not clear. What I do know is that innovation, will save us and we need russia and China to want to lower emissions and they have no plan to.
Back to top
1, 2  Next Recent Topics

Page 1 of 2 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Trump's antisemitic remarks in Hollywood, Florida 110 Wed, Dec 11 2019, 2:14 pm View last post
Perfect life. Yet another spin off 64 Tue, Dec 10 2019, 5:35 pm View last post
The Life-Transforming Diet
by amother
4 Mon, Dec 09 2019, 12:50 pm View last post
S/O Thanksgiving... Pro-Life, Pro-Choice in America 468 Sun, Dec 08 2019, 11:43 am View last post
Pocahontas, Trump, and other hot issues, split from voting 93 Fri, Dec 06 2019, 4:34 am View last post

Jump to: