Trump Haters Are Gaslighting America on the Economy
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans are making every excuse in the book to spin Trump-inspired economic growth as bad. They accuse Trump supporters of “gaslighting” the news all the time, yet they are the ones gaslighting America into believing that the great news about the economy is horrible. Gaslighting is when a person manipulates other people into questioning their own perception of reality. In other words – the recent great economic numbers are catastrophic financial news for middle-class Americans.
The Trump haters are rooting for a depression and they spin great GDP numbers, low unemployment and a general good feeling about the economy as bad news. How many times have you heard a liberal say that “everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts”? Liberals are rewriting the laws of economics to lead the American people to believe that all the fact-based good economic news we hear on a daily basis indicates bad things to come.
The hard left has trotted out the new face of the Democratic Party, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who is pushing socialism. She complained on the July 13 edition of PBS’ “Firing Line” that “unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family." In addition to PolitiFact giving her a well-earned “Pants on Fire” for being so wrong about simple economic theory, she showed that the left will spin good news as bad. The left and its allies in the media will lie about the economy in an attempt to trick the American people into voting for the party of Democratic Socialists this fall.
A Trump-hating Republican has also taken to gaslighting the rosy economic numbers. New York Times columnist David Brooks told a PBS audience on July 30 that his liberal pals in the business community believe that the U.S. is “becoming like this black hole” for investment and that overseas investors “just don’t want to be involved with Trump.” This is a fact-free opinion by the Times’ version of a Republican.
The important fact that socialist Ocasio-Cortez and Never-Trumper Brooks can’t explain away is that the president’s policies have made the American economy great again. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board nailed it a few days ago when they made the case that “for eight years Barack Obama told Americans that inequality was a bigger problem than slow economic growth, that stagnant wages were the fault of the rich, and that government through regulation and politically directed credit could create prosperity. The result was slow growth, and secular stagnation was the intellectual attempt to explain that policy failure.” The fact that deregulation and tax reform served to supercharge risk-taking and investment makes liberals’ heads hurt.
When Brooks claims that the U.S. is a “black hole” for investment, this is a classic example of gaslighting. The WSJ reported that “the [GDP] acceleration has been driven by business investment, which increased 6.3 percent in 2017 and has averaged 9.4 percent in the first half of 2018.” A massive increase in business investment is a fact, yet Brooks uses his emotional hatred of Trump and his small circle of lefty business executives as authority to ignore widely accepted economic numbers. A healthy stock market shows that investors are not fleeing from investments in the U.S. The recently reported GDP number of 4.1 percent for the last quarter shows overall economic strength. Yet, Brooks ignored all of these data points to push a narrative that is false and a provable economic lie.
Ocasio-Cortez claims that “ what we have now is this no-holds-barred, wild west, hyper-capitalism ” that has led to “ the people who create value in our society … not experiencing any of the value they are creating. ” Again, this is an example of a person saying what they want to be true – not what is actually true. The Wall Street Journal cited “a sharp increase in the personal savings rate” that was due to “an upward revision in wages and salaries and jumped to 6.7 percent from 3.4 percent for 2017 and averaged 7 percent in the first half of this year.” They calculate that $500 billion more in cash is in the pockets of Americans than previously estimated. Cortez would have a hard time explaining why consumer spending is so strong when nobody has any money to spend.
The gaslighting of the Trump economy has commenced and it will continue through the fall elections. Every bit of good news will be met with spin as to why it is bad news. Brooks' claim that investors would rather invest in China or Africa when they are not investor-friendly areas of the world shows his lack of objectivity. Socialist calls for a higher minimum wage, Medicare-for-all and free college are ideas that belong in the slow-growth Obama years. Time to give credit where credit is due and stop the gaslighting about the economy.
It is a fact that President Donald J. Trump’s policies have made the economy much better than during the Obama years – full stop.
Tags
Who is online
112 visitors
Trump success? Really? Tidy whiteys and all the rest?
This is the best one from this...………..piece. "Stagnant wages were the fault of the rich." Absolutely. Everybody knows the 'stagnant wages' are the fault of immigrant fruit pickers and the rest of the working poor.
This 'thing' sound like Birtherism on a different ever changing venue.
Oh please, I bet his undies look like a BMX track.
Except 'that' was the term 'she' used.
Yes they do. Solidifying control for the Supply Side ruling class.
Second Amendment still stands.
So will all the rest... We will never be a theocracy, and the rights racism will forever be nothing but a dream.
My, my, HA. That sort of hysteria goes into the "he protests too much" category. Now if you want to talk "blood libel" you could start with the vicious and cowardly anti-semitic attacks on George Soros from our rightwing scum that claim at the age of 15 yrs --the rest of his family murdered, and having been put under the protection of a Hungarian his fathered paid to provide (it's a miracle right there that he didn't get turned in by the man)--collaborated in the holocaust. You should be very careful cavalierly throwing around terms of which you have no understanding.
Not going to happen. Like I have said many times, your religious freedoms CANNOT violate someone else's civil rights, it's illegal.
You have the very same religious rights that you have always had, so stop with the emotional strawmen. Nobody is taking anyone's rights away by forcing you to serve others equally in a public business. The truth is that you want to cite your religious rights to deny equal rights of others, just as the racists did before the Civil Rights Amendment.
When did Jesus tell you to treat others unequally, if you claim that denying LGBT people equal service is a religious right?
That idea creates a theocracy because it would trample the secular and religious rights of others when you inject your irrational religious beliefs into the lives of everyone else. You are no different than ISIL.
It does nothing of the kind in a free society no business should be forced to serve customers they don’t wish to serve
only totalitarian governments force businesses to do so
Public accommodation protection.
Your support of discrimination is noted. I assume that your Bible does not contain Matthew 25:40.
Nonsense.
If one right conflicts with another, then one or the other must be limited. If your religion calls for human sacrifices, you probably will not be allowed full practice....
Nonsense.
Businesses are amoral. They exist to make money for the shareholders, FULL STOP. If making money means dumping cyanide in the river... hey! no problem! If making money means stealing for the poor... hey! no problem! If making money means little children working the rock face... hey! no problem! If making money means .........
If business are not regulated they will do anything, regardless of the consequences off the balance sheet.
We can always debate the ideal perimeter for regulation, but sweeping generalizations against regulation are just plain stupid.
I know what the law says but it’s a law designed for totalitarianism not liberty. It’s part of the decades of usurpation of the Constitution
furthermore Mathew 25 is about personal charity to the needy, not running a business
How is the 1964 Civil Rights Act totalitarian? Is the guarantee of equal rights for all a totalitarian idea?
Matthew 25:40 is Jesus' endorsement of the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Buying a commercial product or service from a private business is not a right. That only occurs under totalitarian governments where government controls private business
Matthew 25 is NOT the golden rule. It is specifically about showing compassion to the needy as if directly to Jesus. Atheists don’t get the right to revise the teachings of Jesus to suit their political agenda
Matthew 7:12
Do you prefer how it is phrased in Matthew 7:12?
Your personal beliefs seem to be almost the exact opposite of what Jesus taught.
My only agenda is to treat others as equals instead of trying to weaponize my faith in order to discriminate.
Are you sure you meant to Reply to me?
That was supposed to be to LFOD's reply @ 3.1.20
I'm sorry.
If that for-profit business is open to the public they cannot refuse to serve someone.
Commerce clause. Article 1, section 8, clause 3.
This has NOTHING to do with how you treat people
ive kept this about the principles of individual liberty and you and Bob want me to seek to make this a theocratic nation
this is about not having the government in control of your business, nothing more.
i don’t care if someone doesn’t want my business, I’ll just go elsewhere.
but you totalitarianism want to force everyone to march lockstep in your ideology.
Commerce Clause abuse by the left
James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell
13 Feb. 1829 Letters 4:14--15
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
Supreme Court Justice Story Commentaries on the Constitution -Commerce Clause
“It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments. When duties are laid, not for purposes of revenue, but of retaliation and restriction, to countervail foreign restrictions, they are strictly within the scope of the power, as a regulation of commerce. But when laid to encourage manufactures, they have nothing to do with it. The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress, than the power to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states.”
This is incoherent nonsense. Your individual liberty does not give you the right to discriminate in a public business based on your religious beliefs. I fail to see how serving anyone is a threat to your religious liberty? Treating others as equals does not in any way create a theocracy because the the ethic of reciprocity is a very secular idea that spans almost all religions and beliefs systems, even us wacky Humanists. Why would an atheist such as myself want you to create a theorcracy? The fact that the separation of church and state also prevents a theocracy seems to be lost on you.
This is a double negative and also incoherent.
You do not have the right to refuse to serve someone when you operate a public business. Either sell the business or make it a private members-only club where you can decide who you will and won't serve. You opened that business voluntarily and agreed to abide by the rules, so either close it and go work for someone else or be a moral person and treat others as you would want to be treated.
Do you also think that speed limits and stop signs are totalitarian or are they Marxist, socialist, and statist?
I kinda guessed...
It's interesting that the same people who are so vociferous about "illegal" immigration are so ready to break the law about equal rights....
I have not once said this is about religious liberty. It’s about liberty itself regardless of religion.
it is you and Bob who keep interjecting religion into the subject not me. So explain why you want a discussion about liberty to be governmened by scripture?
since you don’t believe in individualism, and you support forced collectivism, you can’t understand how forcing a business to sell to everyone violates their liberty.
The 14th Amendment rightly applied should only apply to equal access to justice, government offices and departments, and their services. It should NEVER apply to private enterprise
I’m against speed limits and will tolerate stop signs as the right of cities for public safety
That's very generous of you, "Sovereign" Citizen.
What should be the speed limit in urban areas and on highways? There are fewer and fewer places on the Autobahn that are still unlimited.
I am against speed limits for profit
Sovereign citizens and libertarians want all of the benefits of modern society but they aren't willing to accept the costs or the responsibilities. They haven't matured beyond being teenage boys to accept they they are part of a very interdependent society where we must work together to survive. They don't understand that Ayn Rand wrote (bad) fiction.
HA. Do you remember that law clerk in KY. that refused to issue a marriage license based on her religion? I do, I am sure you do to. You did know that bitch was thrown in jail for using her religion to violate someone else's civil rights, right? YOUR religious freedom CANNOT violate someone else's civil rights. FACT.
When do you and other objectivists plan to go Galt and leave us alone? How do you rationalize your objectivism with your Christian beliefs?
If the US government is not of the people then who are we voting for in elections? Do you ever think before you write these illogical and borderline incoherent claims
Ayn Rand wrote fiction!
All of those are also fiction.
Her objectivist ideas are ignored by philosophers. Only teen boys and the GOP give it any credence.
She claimed to be an atheist but she also claimed to admire the writing of Thomas Aquinas. She was a Russian immigrant who became an American citizen by marriage.
There are two things, fiction and fact. These are not fact. Therefore, they are fiction.
They are not novels... but novels are not the only form of fiction.
Would you then say that Marx's Capital is not fiction? Is it "fact", then? It is exactly the same sort of work as your list for Ayn Rand.
If we must "accept" the Ayn Rand works, then we must "accept" Capital.
I try not to be condescending... I really do...
But it's hard, when you produce sweeping generalizations like
... from one guy's post about Ayn Rand's writing. Is this completely disproportionate reaction typical of how you and your friends operate? Do you swap this kind of claptrap among you? Is that how all of you end up with opinions that are completely divorced from reality?
What you portrayed was simply another example of their "I know you are but what am I?" defense that they use for virtually everything. They live in their own fantasy world, ignoring reality, so they turn it around and say the left is doing it. Ho hum...
As has been pointed out, she happily accepted her Social Security and Medicare benefits. So she was a fraud who created a fantasy story for sociallly and sexually stunted libertarians (but I repeat myself). It's basically a Lord of the Rings for the silly concept of the sovereign citizen. And it's written in the worst sort of trashy bodice-ripping (literally it has bodice ripping between Dagne Taggart and Hank Reardon) tripe clearly aimed at the adolescent male readership who are really getting into jerking off but couldn't find a copy of Playboy.
that bottom line sounds exactly like most of the religious who feel they are the final arbiters of what is truth and what is fact based upon their religious belief in God - if you don't lockstep with that belief then you are condemned to "Hell" for eternity and damned to burn eternally just for not accepting their "truth" and "facts". It's the condescending arrogance that has been noted here in recent times, especially with issues like same sex marriage.
Let me guess, HA heard someone call trump a gaslighter, which he is, big time, and so here we have another article saying, "I know you are but what am I"?
By Corey Lewandowski
Well, that explains that... LOL
The right said Obama was unqualified.
The right said Obama was weak.
The right said Obama was stupid.
The right said Obama was arrogant.
The right said Obama was a laughingstock around the world.
The right said Obama acted like a dictator.
The right said Obama was a racist.
The right said Obama was a liar.
The right said Obama was a narcissist.
The right said Obama golfed too much.
So they elected Trump.
Now they say liberals are gaslighters. Why do we even bother talking to them anymore?
And yet the republicans who have been whining about the deficit are adding to it at breakneck speed...
The "deficit problem" has always been a GOP scam, to reduce social spending. If a deficit send tons of money to the already-rich, then they're all for it.
Have you ever wondered why your "trusted sources", like Real Clear Politics, are constantly using the term "Trump haters"?
I don't know anyone who "hates" Trump. I know a lot of people who disrespect and despise him, but none who "hate" him.
The disrespect and contempt that many feel toward the President are not about the person. They are the result of what the President himself has said and done.
Words like "contempt" are appropriate for what non-trumpsters feel. "Hate" is not appropriate. So why do your sources use it?
The answer is obvious. "Hate" needn't be explained. It is a basic, unconstructed emotion, requiring no explanation from the one who uses it. Real Clear Politics says "Trump haters"... and doesn't need to explain why anyone would hate Trump. "Hate" doesn't require explanation.
If RCP used "Trump-contemptuous", which would be a valid term, the reader would have an automatic reflex to ask "why". That is to be avoided at all costs. The Unthinking Faithful TM must not be encouraged... or even allowed... to ask, "why".
"Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans are making every excuse in the book to spin Trump-inspired economic growth as bad."
Bullshit statement. The economy was already strong when Trump took office, he's merely continued the same trends Obama started (though job growth has actually slowed under Trump).
"They accuse Trump supporters of “gaslighting” the news all the time, yet they are the ones gaslighting America into believing that the great news about the economy is horrible. Gaslighting is when a person manipulates other people into questioning their own perception of reality."
Yes, and it's exactly what Trump and the Republicans have done. They tried to make everyone believe the economy was terrible under Obama (even though Obama cut unemployment by over 10% and oversaw at the time all time high DOW records), and that it just magically blossomed under Trump even though he hadn't actually done anything to improve it. Now they try to past blame the good economy and low unemployment on tax cuts that didn't happen for a year after he was inaugurated and the cutting of regulations that haven't actually been changed yet.
"In other words – the recent great economic numbers are catastrophic financial news for middle-class Americans."
The supposedly "recent" news isn't recent at all, the US economy had been growing steadily for the last 6 years. What we are seeing now is an unstable market that has already experienced its worst single day loss in its history under Trump. Is there profit to be made in a wildly oscillating market? Yes, of course, it's what some financial pirates hope and pray for, but it can also ruin families and destroy pensions. When there is uncertainty in the markets investing is much more akin to gambling, and nothing has created uncertainty like Trump in the white house.
Not exactly.
Obama did one thing right: he got the Stimulus through Congress. It was not ideal, but it did the job of stopping the general economic collapse engendered by the 2008 financial melt-down.
Since then, the economy has been managed by the Fed, as is right and proper. Bernanke and Yellen kept the economy steady, allowing natural post-recession growth to express itself and then some. (Powell hasn't led the Fed long enough to draw any conclusions about him, but so far he seems to be staying on the Bernanke-Yellen path.)
Politicians can occasionally play a role in the economy. The Stimulus. Probably the Trade War. But most of the time the country is much better off leaving the economy to the specialists. That's not great for headlines or Manichean online forum debates... but it's true: Presidents aren't very important for the economy.
Usually, however I sure dont trust trump not to screw this one up.
trump is much more of a gambling person than I am. To and with trump its go big or go home... sometimes bankrupt.
I remember way back when when donald trump was "Too Big to Fail" and a large number of banks had to work with him because personally bankrupting him (even though he was past that point) they bailed his ass out so he didn't take them down with him.
Now this guys our president... What a fucked up world !
As I mentioned, the Trade War is the kind of thing a President can do that may indeed have a serious impact on the economy.
Economists are more or less unanimous in predicting that the effect will be negative... but it's largely uncharted waters.
I just call it, "A huge gamble or shorten it to President trump."
Before trump was even elected I figured if he was this was going to be one of the largest gambles America has undertaken if elected. I'd rank this president's gambling factor right up there with joining into a large scale war. We'll see WTF happens in years.
Up or down, for the good or the bad, I'll bet trump doesn't leave America the same as it was when he took office, and that includes our financial status.
Absolutely. This is very much like letting a small child drive a car. The car may reach its destination... or not... or...
But I don't know of any similar economic events in recent history, so I don't know how it will play out. I haven't seen anything very... didactic... from my usual sources, so I'm guessing that they aren't very sure either.
In that scenario I'd be concerned for the child, that's not where my concern lies at this point.
In our case I'm sure the child will be fine regardless, its the rest of the us that concerns me.
I'd say a nice tax holiday for the average Joe and a huge tax break for the wealthy then increasing spending on numerous projects may not be so financially sound either.
But I cant do billionaire math so WTF do I know.
I just know I cant do it or I'd cut my hours at work and buy a new home to enjoy.
That's a good analogy, but why even use the car? It's exactly like letting a small child be President. A small, spoiled, angry child with a serious learning disability.
Yes. Simpler is better.
Yep:
That's an impressive impact on a pickup truck. I assume that they didn't survive.
Gawd .............
Do you know how boring your "clever method" has become?
All you know is to take what some liberal says and turn it 180°... on the assumption that it still holds meaning. Each time you do this, you demonstrate once again that you have nothing original to say.
Your "cleverness" is s-o-o predictable and s-o-o-o-o boring!!!
Your posts get more pathetic by the day.
The 14 year old driver is one with the truck and the tree.
It took longer than usual for the rightwing pukefunnel to pick up the term that's been used to describe Scumbag's behavior for over a year and hurl it back at his critics. Somehow this "NO I'M NOT, YOU ARE" tactic seems to pass as some kind of "response" in trumphumper circles. It sure is one of their favorites.