The best friend Ukraine ever had
Link to quote: Trump points finger at Zelensky for Russia's invasion: 'He should never have let that war start'
Donald Trump has just begun his second term. He has inherited stubborn inflation, a wide-open border (now all but closed), tremendous debt and two wars. On the foreign policy side, one war has ended with a fragile deal and the other is in the very early stages of being dealt with. That would be the bloody war in Ukraine which has killed so many on both sides while leaving Ukraine's cities in ruin.
How did we get to the war in Ukraine? It began with a failed Geneva reset during the Obama administration in which Obama thought that Ukraine could be an EU member and possible even a NATO member right on Russia's doorstep. I suppose the dreamers dreamt that Russia would somehow accept it all and maybe even succumb to western influence. That was the silly button that Hillary Clinton famously pushed.
What the lefties seem to have forgotten was that there has never been a popular government in Russia, from the Czars to the Soviet Union right up to the Russia Federation. Furthermore, even democracies such as our own don't allow threats on their doorstep. In the early 60s the Soviet Union was forced to take their missiles out of Cuba which is only 90 miles from the US.
So, what did Donald Trump do when he came in the first time?
He sanctioned Russia and flooded the market with cheap oil, which not only prevented Putin from conducting military operations, but nearly bankrupted Russia. He was the best friend Ukraine ever had. However, when Biden became president things changed dramatically. Biden served the interests of the green energy wing of his party and Russia was out from under when it came to energy. He also ran like a cowardly rat from Afghanistan. Putin took notice and took the opportunity to attack Ukraine.
After 3 years of tremendous expense for the US, a tremendous loss of life for both Ukraine and Russia there is now the scent of a deal. The US and Russia haven't really spoken during the entirety of the Ukraine War, so the first step in making a deal was to restore US-Russian relations. That is going on right now. It is not as the lefties are trying to tell us, a deal without Ukraine.
The negotiations have yet to begin, but the parameters should be fairly obvious to everyone:
1) Ukraine will not be in NATO.
2) Ukraine will be armed and protected.
3) There might just be a demilitarized zone.
4) Donbas and Crimea might be part of that zone, but Russia may have to go back to the pre-invasion point.
What do both sides get?
Ukraine endured the Russian onslaught. Its population returns. Its cities get rebuilt. If it works on the minerals deal with the Trump administration it gains the technology to develop its raw materials, but also an American interest/involvement within the country.
They were NEVER going to get Donbas and Crimea back.
Russia finally gets out of a war that resembled the Vietnam War.
All that is left is for Zelensky is to learn how to say thank you.
Tags
Who is online
28 visitors
A peace deal with Russia is not just about stopping the war.
It should convince Russia that its invasion was a costly failure.
Gotta agree Vince.
Early on I naively thought that the Russian people would rise up when the losses became extreme, or that Putin's generals would seek to end the futility of trying to subdue the Ukrainian people. Russia can apparently absorb all these losses of lives and resources indefinitely, so Zelensky has no choice but to capitulate.
If other countries in te region want to be protected from further Russian expansion, they going to have to pay for it, and that means strengthening NATO
Careful with the name.
Early on I naively thought that the Russian people would rise up when the losses became extreme, or that Putin's generals would seek to end the futility of trying to subdue the Ukrainian people. Russia can apparently absorb all these losses of lives and resources indefinitely, so Zelensky has no choice but to capitulate.
It is hard for an American to understand. When you think about it, Russia never had a popular government - not under the Czars, not under the Soviet Union and not now under the Federation. The Russian people simply accept it like fate. I call it the monastery of the mind.
Think of their "patriotic war" against Nazi Germany in which they sacrificed 7-1 casualties vs the German Army. That came after Stalin had slaughtered countess millions of his own people.
If other countries in te region want to be protected from further Russian expansion, they going to have to pay for it, and that means strengthening NATO
They may have to up the ante on paying for NATO. They can do it with curbing the entitlements and restoring some sort of defense for Europe.
Yep, Europe finally needs to learn to take care of themselves. The US will gladly help but we’ve carried their water long enough.
It’s our own fault. We’ve been heavily subsidizing them for way too long.
It's like having a 40-year-old son living with his parents.
The US will gladly help but we’ve carried their water long enough.
Let's see: We rebuilt Europe, protected them for 75 years and even allowed them an unfair trade balance as if they were developing countries.
We’ve been heavily subsidizing them for way too long.
Finally, there is an officer on deck!
"It's like having a 40-year-old son living with his parents."
and Like a 40 year old living in Parents house, they don't pitch in much, complain a lot and want to run things and are poor at showing application
One can get quite comfortable living with no expenses and a nice soft bed.
How is that going to happen without Putin losing face?.. which is not going to happen.
He does get one big out. The land he has taken is either part of a DMZ or it becomes part of the Russian Federation.
So what’s the fix?
I have no idea. Seems a huge mess to me.
I do agree it's time for the rest of Europe to kick in more cash or equivalents. Other than that, I dunno.
I know one thing. Nothing happens without communication. Unlike some here I’m not one rooting against potential success of current negotiations.
I doubt anyone wants current negotiations to fail. It is more that Trump, et. al. have pretty much poisoned the well. Thus it does not look very promising that this will result in anything other than Putin getting what he wants and Ukraine being forced to capitulate.
I have stated repeatedly that this is one area where I held out a little hope that Trump could do some good. But to do good, he would need to show some of his magical negotiation powers to end the war with terms that necessarily involve both sides giving up something. Both sides, at this stage, must save face. Both sides must find this to be a fair compromise. And there needs to be an agreement in place that allows a future where Ukraine is not under constant threat from Russia.
I would love to see this and would credit Trump for doing something good for a change.
What seems to be happening is that Trump is doing what his bullshit "end the war with a phone call" suggested — that he would take the easy way out and throw Ukraine under the bus.
My comment here is basically extrapolating based on Trump's extremely easy to understand modus operandi. I have hoped to be surprised, but it looks like this will be yet another reason as to why Trump should never have been elected PotUS.
I doubt that is even remotely true.
How about, I doubt that the vast majority of people do NOT want a fair ending of this war.
I’ll let you continue down that path on your own. Suffice it to say, more has been done to find a way to end that war in the last month, than all the previous months.
Ending the war is too simplistic. Biden could have ended the war by ending support for Ukraine. The trick is to end the war fairly and to dissuade Putin from continued aggression.
So far, what Trump, et. al. has done is project that they are going to try to end the war by forcing Ukraine to capitulate. I suspect that even Trump supporters like you would not applaud such a result.
What Trump has done is to engage the problem to try and find a solution to war. In one month.
What Biden did was pour more gas on the fire. For years.
Your thinly veiled insult is noted and duly rejected.
Give us an example
An example of a plausible end would be Ukraine recognizing Crimea as Russian territory while Russia withdraws its demand that Ukraine never join NATO.
Note that I do not have access to the information that a PotUS would have and do not enjoy the council of highly experienced experts in Russia-Ukraine, warfare, international negotiation, etc. so I suspect that these powers could do a much better job than I can in a post on a social media site.
Further, I did not factor in notions such as the USA using its own might to help influence an unfairly disagreeable side of the table.
I made no insult ... not even thinly veiled. WTF are you talking about? Do you not consider yourself a Trump supporter? Do you disagree that you would applaud the result I noted?
I didn’t stutter and my post stands as is.[✘]
[✘]
As I have already said that is taken for granted.
Note that I do not have access to the information that a PotUS would have and do not enjoy the council of highly experienced experts in Russia-Ukraine, warfare, international negotiation, etc. so I suspect that these powers could do a much better job than I can in a post on a social media site.
Last night Brett Baier interviewed Trump's new Treasury Secretary, who says that Trump has a plan and he has seen it:
BESSENT: The plan that I've seen that President Trump has, I think he could win the Nobel Peace Prize for this. If it were fairly awarded, I think in a year he should get it from what I've seen.
Bessent: Trump "Could Win The Nobel Peace Prize" For His Plan To Rebuild Ukraine, If It Were Fairly Awarded | Video | RealClearPolitics
I don't disagree with anything you have said. Zelensky just received Trump's special Envoy and is already toning down the rhetoric. So let us all hope that there is a fair deal that will end this war and protect Ukraine in the future.
Until I see a plan, this means nothing to me. And it should mean nothing to you. Trump has claimed to have a plan to replace ACA since 2016.
That is a first.
I was hopeful. I thought this was one area where Trump could actually do some good. I have little hope at this point. It makes no sense to publicly cast one of the negotiation partners as the person who started the war, a dictator, a leader with a 4% approval rating if one is trying to facilitate a complex peace agreement. Not unless the 'plan' is to side with Putin against Ukraine.
Ukraine should a NATO member and Russia pay to rebuild it
The only way that would happen is if Ukraine is absrobed back under Russia.
Russia did the damage, USA and Europe should not get stuck with cost to rebuild but probably will
I fully agree that the US and Europe shouldn't get stuck with that bill. But we both know Russia won't do a damn thing. Getting them to steup up is going to be a challenge.
Russia's GDP is lower than Brazil's, why do you think China is having to pay for this conflict, the same reason We are paying for it.
Russia depends on energy exports. Trump had them broke and Biden had them able to afford a war.
I don't see the US dumping any more money into that quagmire. Biden's already wasted billions.
And let us toast all things that should be!
The fact is that nobody is willing to go to nuclear war over Ukraine. Not the NATO leaders nor Joe Biden were ready to make that committment.
So let us give Ukraine the security they need and let us get to an agreement ending this war.
While it’s the most fair outcome, that’s the type of peace a conqueror imposes. The question to answer is how does Russia get put in the position of essentially unconditional surrender?
It would require an absolute victory.
No one ever wants to explain Ukraine gets from the position it’s in now to imposing those terms.
Zelensky isn't holding any cards at all. He should shut his mouth and hope Trump gets him a deal.
And that will probably happen quickly after the USA withdraws from NATO or gets kicked out of NATO.
Ethically, yes, historically, no, and Putin could care less.
This is the fakiest shit I've seen on Newstalkers since Badfish left.
Meanwhile, in Boston...
Don't tell me that the place relied on 9 people to run the library.
Yes, I imagine it takes 9 people to run a Presidential Library...
Have you ever been to that library?
"Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., also criticized the Trump administration's broad efforts to cut federal jobs and programs.
"President Trump is firing American workers who monitor bird flu outbreaks, safeguard nuclear facilities, and now those who promote American history in Dorchester -- all to help pay for tax breaks for billionaires and giant corporations," she said. "Trump's shutdown of the JFK Library won't lower egg prices or make housing more affordable, but it's part of a retribution tour designed to distract from his agenda to enrich the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of everyone else."
Ahhh once again we see the idiocy of the left and their "go-to"
Ahhh once again we see the idiocy of the right and their inability to refute the left's claim that Trump will give billionaires tax cuts just like he did last time he was in office.
Along with everyone else. You forgot that part.
Al little more to show once again the left tries to make something out of nothing:
Alan Price, director of the library, was on site for the opening. He said the museum shut down after five probationary employees who worked in ticketing and other front-of-the-facility roles were fired.
No one else was trained to handle ticketing, which forced the closure, Price said.
That's a new novel phrase. "Fakiest shit."
I've seen on Newstalkers since Badfish left.
Oh ya, the lone right-wing mod in NT's orbit. Gee, I wonder what happened there?
Charger 383 should take offense of that...
Why?
He is one of only five moderates here.
I'm sure Charge can speak for himself.
I don't know what kind of flailing reply you are trying to make. Badfish was never a moderator.
Lets talk about the fakery of this article. The "linked" quote , which puts Trump in a better light, is a quote from FOUR MONTHS AGO, about an event that happened yesterday. YESTERDAY Trump accused Ukraine of starting the war. Yesterday Trump said Zelensky's approval rating in his country is 4%, which is an outrageous lie.
He is in the process of selling Ukraine out.
Thanks, but I take it in stride
He wasn't? Does anyone care to comment on that?
YESTERDAY Trump accused Ukraine of starting the war.
That quote did not specifically say Ukraine started the war. He could just as well have been referencing Obama/Hillary's reset policy. Are you really going to run with another of Trump's vague quotes?
Yesterday Trump said Zelensky's approval rating in his country is 4%, which is an outrageous lie.
Please show me a poll of the Ukrainian people which disproves that claim.
Why hasn't Zelensky allowed an election?
Why is Zelensky trying to interfere with US-Russia relations?
Why is Zelensky acting like the US owes him something?
I beat you up badly enough on a daily basis. Do you really want me to do it again?
LMAO! You are one of the few that dares come here to dispute the truth.
How many seeds now compare Trump to Hitler on this site?
The idea is to talk about news events in a rational way.
More like...
There is video that shows exactly what Trump said, and it is completely clear he was talking about Ukraine, not Clinton/Obama.
I gave you the chance to duck out, but no.......
[✘]
He did not say UKRAINE.
You have failed again. Aside from the fake outrage, how do you think he's doing?
LOL. Do your ears work? Trump says
My ears work fine.
That is a general "you've." It includes Zelensky, Biden and Putin.
Is that what Sean Hannity told you? lol.
The video is quite clear , Trump references Ukraine,
"today I heard "we weren't invited", well you've been there "
The "we" and the "you've" are referencing the same entity. This is not even slightly debatable. But you try anyway.
It is not clear. Trump is responding to spoiled brat Zelensky and is obviously saying a lot of stuff at once without much detail.
You posted that tape. Look how fast Trump is speaking.
Does anyone really think that Trump is accusing Ukraine of starting the war?
[✘]
That's not a rational comment, but a stupid meme.
Your comment here is an example of the kind of disinformation we have to put up with every hour of the day here
Yeah, Vic. He said it! It was a brain-dead stupid thing to say but that is Trump. After all, he is still claiming he won the 2020 election.
Of course, Trump publicly turns on Zelensky and his supporters fall in lockstep.
Yeah, Vic, Zelensky is the bad guy here. Zelensky should have never started this war by invading Russia.
Putin is manipulating Trump. Plain as day. Musk is too. And Trump is too stupid to even recognize it.
Charger is not right wing. He is by far the most moderate of the group.
Shall we ask our readers?
Here is one picking up her kids. Do you think he is moderate?
We love Charger
“He is in the process of selling Ukraine out.”
Better to sell out that pos zelensky than the US, as the dems and their bootlickers were doing.
[✘]
Not even close to some of the left wing nonsense we see here every week.
Not even close ….
Not as fake as some of the shit y'all post.
Zelensky: "It seems like Russia and the U.S. are preparing an ultimatum to Ukraine, talking about Ukraine without Ukraine. We didn’t accept ultimatums in 2022, when the situation was much more serious and nobody was helping us, and I have no intention of accepting any ultimatums now."
Defiant Ukrainian military chiefs vow to 'fight until the last death' despite ceasefire calls by US and Russia | The Sun
Okay then fight it till the last Ukrainian. Half the Ukrainians have fled. The country is in ruins, but do as you must.
We didn’t accept ultimatums in 2022, when the situation was much more serious and nobody was helping us
that’s a lie
I say let him fight on, but he needs to compensate the US for all the aid (about 250 billion) he has received.
On the way out the door, the guy who was fighting to save "democracy" ordered an audit of the nominee for Secretary of Defense.
Such evil must be removed from the federal government
Can you imagine the meltdown the left would have if Trump did something like that?
In the image of the man they admire.
Just curious.
The IRS will only contact you through the mail, so if this were a piece of mail addressed to him, who was it that leaked it to the media?
Whoever did that needs to be arrested, prosecuted and jailed because stealing mail is a felony.
Maybe we'll start prosecuting the leftist leakers in government.
Like Schiff?
Schiff would be at the top of the list.
Has the statute of limitations run out on Comey?
Don't know about limitations, but I would add that Vindman dude as another.
Yes sir, he might be on the list over Comey.
I think you have the proper order.
(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday ruled that Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration lacked authority to pursue a student debt relief plan designed to lower monthly payments for millions of borrowers and speed up loan forgiveness for some.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with seven Republican-led states that sued to block the U.S. Education Department's rule, which they say would cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. President Donald Trump's administration was expected to roll it back had the court not enjoined it.
(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston)
But then again, Biden did tell us that he knew it was illegal, but he would do it anyway. Funny, there was no outrage from the media.
Some leftists heads are going to explode if it is ruled they have to repay the money they owe. I expect more crying in the streets.
But let the current administration even remotely go against the courts and the media and left will have a hissy fit.
Even the Obama judge, who seems to get every case involving Trump, Tanya Chutkan, has ruled in Trump's favor. It seems the elected President does have a right to fire federal employees. I had a hunch that he had that absolute right!
And we can expect a mass crying at the sky any time now.
They got to be pissed.
They work so hard to get every case to her desk.
I'm not sure this would be considered working hard....
The only word to describe it is "creepy."
Good morning.
It's time to go out an educate those activist "reporters."
Lavrov: We don’t agree to stop attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure because we never attacked it.
We may have a long way to go.
More news from crazy land:
Cynthia Erivo is heading back to the stage following her huge success in the movie version of Wicked.
The Oscar nominee is set to play the title role in a new production of Jesus Christ Superstar at the iconic Hollywood Bowl over the summer, marking her first major performance since playing Elphaba in the hit big-screen musical.
Cynthia Erivo To Play Jesus In First Role Since Wicked
She will play Jesus.
You notice they don't ever do this with Muhammad, i wonder why? are they just a bunch of cowardly pieces of shit.
I suppose it is because the one group you can do anything to in America is Christians.
are they just a bunch of cowardly pieces of shit.
They want the Illusion of being brave radicals rather than actually doing something that would put them in danger,
Yes
Can you imagine the outrage of a gay, transsexual black woman portraying Muhammed?
[deleted]
Now do one of Muhammad.
I'll take "Unrelated and Stupid Shit" for $200 Alex.
Speaking of outrage.
Trump inherited inflation at 3% which is higher than ideal of 2% but not something that can be spun as a major issue. The borders were not properly addressed under Biden, but they were never wide-open (ridiculous exaggeration). The USA has had tremendous debt since Bush. Trump contributed heavily to that debt in his first term.
And Trump has right off the bat unnecessarily created new problems. He has recast the USA as a nation that cannot be trusted with all of its power: public threats of tariffs, execution of tariffs, public trolling of Canada, public threats of taking Panama, Greenland. And, of course, his Riviera of the Middle East. He has damaged international relationships. He has made the USA look foolish with his Gulf of America renaming and the brain-dead stupid comments he makes on the world stage (e.g. claiming that tariffs are paid by the exporting nation).
Putin invaded Ukraine to seize some of their land. This in 2014 and again in 2022 (large scale). When one nation invades another to seize its territory, that typically is seen as the critical event that caused the subsequent war.
Well if they were nearly bankrupted, why (and how) did they engage in war? And Biden, along with the coalition he formed, imposed even further sanctions and further armed Ukraine. Looks to me as though blind 'magical' credit is given to Trump and 'magical' blame placed on Biden; what a surprise. Do you believe Trump's bullshit that the war would have never started if he was PotUS?
Trump and his supporters try to portray Trump as some kind of bad ass super hero.
The reality is that both Musk and Putin are manipulating Trump before our eyes and Trump is too stupid to even recognize it.
Not by itself, no, but when it is multiplied over and over for the past 3.5 years, and Americans are paying 20 percent on average for essentials, then yes, it is a major issue.
" The borders were not properly addressed under Biden, but they were never wide-open (ridiculous exaggeration). "
Ten million (caught) illegals over 4 years and who knows how many got aways beg to differ.
"Trump contributed heavily to that debt in his first term."
No one is arguing this. It is simply mentioned that he inherited a large debt.
So do you understand that your 'point' does not in any way argue that 3% inflation is bad. Unless you want to go to the point of arguing that the ideal rate of 2% is also bad for the same reason.
Inflation is precisely the rate of increases in prices ("the rate of increase in prices over a given period of time."). Any inflation over 0% reflects an increase as you describe.
Hello?
A new PotUS taking the helm with an inflation rate of 3% is NOT something that should be seen as abnormal or even bad. That is, if one understands basic economics.
They were caught. During that time period, there was a worldwide increase in border encounters. As noted, partisan exaggerations.
Why was it mentioned? Biden inherited a large debt. So did Trump in 2016, so did Obama. What is the point of even mentioning it if not to cast aspersions on Biden?
You could have just posted "yes, you are correct". That would have been a hell of a lot easier.
No need for the unasked for lecture.
"They were caught"
And most were released into the interior of the country, many committing heinous crimes. I guess that doesn't bother you.
"What is the point of even mentioning it if not to cast aspersions on Biden?"
We can change the name from Biden to Trump and ask the same question of you.
You were not correct.
You need to support that claim. The number of illegals in this nation has been between 10 million and 12 million since Bush.
Give credible evidence that most were released into the interior of our nation.
You have nothing.
To clarify....
Most were not "caught". They simply walked across the border, in a non designated asylum entry point, and gave themselves up to Border Patrol.
THEN they were released into the interior, ie, wide open border.
Your claim is irrelevant. Deliver persuasive evidence.
Also: 3% inflation is not bad given 2% is ideal. And every PotUS since Bush inherited huge debt and added to it. Including Trump! And he will do it again.
I am correct.
Your left wing media will never admit that Biden and his DEI hire VP pretty much gave up the country to an invading group of people.
"The number of illegals in this nation has been between 10 million and 12 million since Bush"
Possibly correct, however, during the human lifespan, many of those illegals passed away while in the country, and many, many more took their place, especially during Biden and his DEI hire VP TENURE.
"ou have nothing."
The irony.
Not liking it does not mean irrelevant.
Average 3 percent year over year makes good very difficult for many Americans to afford.
The cult of Bidenism is still strong.
Then you have a problem with an ideal 2% inflation. Economists would find such a view to be naive.
And it is obvious you cannot back up your immigration claim. Ergo I deem it bullshit.
2% is the target. 3% is fifty percent higher. That’s a major difference that compounds over time.
This from the Washington Examiner...........
A congressional report revealed that the Biden administration has allowed federal law enforcement at the southern border to release 2.1 million illegal immigrants into the United States between President Joe Biden’s first day in office and March 31, 2023 — 90% of whom did not claim asylum .
Of the 3,447,327 people encountered at the southern border in that 26-month time frame, the overwhelming majority, or 2,148,738, were let into the country, according to an analysis of government data released by the House Judiciary Committee and its subcommittee on immigration integrity, security, and enforcement Monday.
US EMBASSY IN EGYPT WARNS CITIZENS TO USE ‘INCREASED SECURITY’ AFTER TOURIST DEATHS
The report found that the Biden administration had overwhelmingly failed to remove people who illegally entered the country and were then placed into court proceedings.
“Between January 20, 2021, and March 31, 2023, the Biden Administration has removed from the United States only 5,993 illegal aliens who were encountered at the southwest border and who were placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge during that time,” the Republican-controlled committee wrote in the report.
This report ended in March 23. Do you think the released dropped dramatically between then and the end of the failed Biden and DEI hire VP?
Those that do are delusional.
Looks like your claim is bullshit.
Right off the bat, your claim of 10 million encounters where most were released into the USA is not supported by your link. And you are also trying to move the goalpost. I noted upfront @11.1 : " The borders were not properly addressed under Biden ... " so that is not the point in contention. My view is that due to the spike in encounters, the Federal government should have put much more effort to help deal with this spike.
The point in contention is your claim that most of 10 million encounters were released into the USA (as in they made it past our borders and are free to stay here in perpetuity) and that this justifies the border under Biden as open compared to that under Trump . That claim is factually wrong.
During Biden's term immigration spiked worldwide. So of course the number of encounters increased for the USA.
However:
The linked report gives plenty of details on the meaning of immigration statistics. It illustrates that we have had a border problem for many years (including Trump's term). It also illustrates that there is no support to compare the border under Trump with that under Biden and deem it to be "wide open" unless one recognizes that it was slightly "wider open" under Trump.
Also: 3% inflation is not bad given 2% is ideal. And every PotUS since Bush inherited huge debt and added to it. Including Trump! And he will do it again.
The rate of inflation may have slowed from the 40 year high it was at under Joe Biden, but prices are still high on many food items and although it may not be a major issue to some, it is still the issue for the working class.
The borders were not properly addressed under Biden, but they were never wide-open (ridiculous exaggeration).
It is not an exaggeration; it is an indisputable FACT. Furthermore, it was not incompetence that opened the border, it was by design. He released millions of aliens at the border, paroled over a million more using programs Congress never authorized, and allowed at least 2 million more to evade the Border Patrol. That resulted in the fastest illegal alien invasion in U.S. history. The foreign-born population now exceeds the previous high from the 1890s to over 15% of the population.
Trump contributed heavily to that debt in his first term.
Do you recall his first term? When the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi demanded that he spend more? When what was intended to offset a taxc cut was defeated by the spite of one Senator?
And Trump has right off the bat unnecessarily created new problems. He has recast the USA as a nation that cannot be trusted with all of its power: public threats of tariffs, execution of tariffs, public trolling of Canada, public threats of taking Panama, Greenland. And, of course, his Riviera of the Middle East. He has damaged international relationships. He has made the USA look foolish with his Gulf of America renaming and the brain-dead stupid comments he makes on the world stage (e.g. claiming that tariffs are paid by the exporting nation).
The results are that Canada will have a new “fentanyl czar,” and Mexico pledged to deploy 10,000 members of its National Guard. Nicaragua has agreed to take back those being deported and Costa Rica even went a bit farther officially announcing that it will accept illegal immigrants from India and Central Asia. The cartels will be declared as terrorist organizations and they are already under surveillance. Panama declined to renew The Belt and Road Initiative with China, which amounts to a colonial agreement. The US base at Guantanamo Cuba is now prepared to hold high threat migrants. I think the US is now looking pretty good.
Putin invaded Ukraine to seize some of their land. This in 2014 and again in 2022 (large scale). When one nation invades another to seize its territory, that typically is seen as the critical event that caused the subsequent war.
He didn't do that randomly. He did that when he could afford to do it.
Well if they were nearly bankrupted, why (and how) did they engage in war?
How could you forget Joe Biden's presidency when oil prices went up. That's a very convenient lapse of memory.
Do you believe Trump's bullshit that the war would have never started if he was PotUS?
History has proved him right. Putin took Crimea under Obama and invaded directly under Biden back when Biden was saying we'd live with a minor incursion. He didn't make and moves when gas prices were low, and the "dangerous" hand of Trump was near the nuclear button.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The era of the left is over. The people have spoken.
Funny how convenient liberal memory can be but that said, they never let facts get in the way of their latest liberal/progressive narrative.
Never
In the words of the French statesman Charles Maurice de Talleyrand:
"They learned nothing and forgot nothing"
Yes, Vic, prices are still high. That is why I did not say that prices were lower but rather that inflation was lower (3% vs the ideal of 2%). So now we will watch Trump's flat out lie that he will lower prices translate into nothing. The major reason why he was elected, to lower prices, will not happen. What is most likely to happen is the opposite because of an unforced error by Trump to engage in tariffs and trade wars. And we will watch Trump supporters weave and bob rather than acknowledge that Trump has failed them in this critical area.
The phrase 'wide open' is demonstrably an EXAGGERATION since it means nobody is being stopped. Further, a slightly higher percentage of encounters were caught under Biden than Trump, even though the number of encounters dramatically increased (as it did worldwide). So if you are going to exaggerate and claim that the borders were 'wide open' under Biden then you would have to claim that the borders were slight wider open under Trump. There is your FACT!
Do you? The national debt rose more under Trump than it did under Biden. FACT! Deflection does not change the fact.
Those results could have been attained by Trump privately negotiating with our trade partners rather than publicly trying to bully them and insult them. He has unnecessarily damaged international relationships. He is a loose-cannon, arrogant, irresponsible bully who is unfit for the presidency.
Trump can get away claiming that Putin never would have invaded Ukraine while he was president because it is impossible to falsify that claim. He can claim anything, literally, bad would not have happened if he were PotUS (typically does too). The claim is bullshit. There is no supporting evidence (since this is unfalsifiable).
But we can see counter evidence. The fact that Putin is controlling Trump in the Ukraine 'negotiations' strongly suggests that Putin is dominant, not Trump. Same domestically with Musk. Both Musk and Putin are smarter than Trump, know how to pull his strings, and Trump is apparently not smart enough to even realize this.
And you stepped right into it. Yes, Vic, the Russian economy rebounded in 2021. So did it ever occur to you that the influx of revenue had something to do with the timing of the Ukraine invasion? Far more plausible than Putin waiting for Trump to leave office before invading Ukraine. Trump, counter to his rhetoric, is not a super hero and is not a great negotiator. He is a demagogue who is well-practiced at propaganda. His super power is getting people to believe bullshit.
One must invent an alternate reality and a distorted history to believe that.
He did not move when his revenues were low. And do you actually believe that Putin fears Trump starting a nuclear war? Further, if Trump is capable of such an act, do you think he is fit to be PotUS?
If you define 'the left' as those to your left, then that is demonstrably false. Further, Trump won the presidency with a plurality of the electorate; about ⅓ of registered voters. You have a very distorted (extremely wishful) view of what took place.
Some inflation (2-2.5%) is figured into the books every year. We all remember fifty cent gas and $2.00 a pound sirloin steaks...
Modern Economics is all about taming the business cycle through tax, spending and monetary policy. It is not an exact science because things wars and epidemics and things as simple as massive droughts disrupt supply chains effecting supply and demand relationships. In any case, prices are expected to go up moderately pretty much every year. While deflation may sound attractive, it can be catastrophic. When homes, land, commodities, fuel and fixed assets plunge in value mortgages, business and production loans become unsecured resulting in loss of operation funding and bank insolvency.
Just imagine if the value of homes dropped by 25% which has happened before. It would wipe out the net worths of middle class Americans. Homes would be underwater, loans would default, banks would close. Deflation can be devastating...
I wish you would address Vic instead of me. Telling me what I have already repeatedly written does not accomplish anything.
While I agree with your post, Vic is not likely to read it or respond to it.
[✘]
Also, because a lot of people really do not understand the basics of macroeconomics. I see intelligent people who remain basically flat earthers regarding economics. Maybe the not closed minded read and retain some of the basics. I am not arguing with you, but you tend to be zero sum on some complex aspects of economics which are actually not at all that simple. The multiplier effect of money changing hands as opposed to money being saved, for instance, is something even intelligent laymen underestimate greatly. Tax policy has always been about redistribution of wealth. I see lots of people who do not understand that extreme wealth concentration is bad bad bad and inevitably ends tragically.
Be specific. The items you mentioned do not contradict what I have written so they are not examples. Especially the extreme wealth concentration.
So where am I more zero-sum?
You economic dogma tends to be more Milton Freedman than Maynard Keynes. There are good reasons Keynes is widely regarded as The Father of Modern Economics and Freedman is relegated to the Chicago School / Federalist Society side...
Just opinion from years of interactions. I studied economics.
That is not helping me understand your criticism in any way. Maybe wait until I make a specific point and then opine so that I have a means of intelligently responding.
I'd put your economic IQ in the 90th percentile which is good, but I earned a sheepskin diploma from a major university with the word Economics writ upon it and spent my entire career in international business. Your expertise is in another field. While you are much more knowledgeable than most, you lean very conservative. For instance, regarding deficits, tax rates and the national debt. Economics is a complicated field with many wild card variables. You know infinity more about computer science, which is your field...
Be specific, JBB. It is entirely unfair for you to criticize me and not include specifics.
So, for example, what have I stated about deficits and national debt that you believe is wrong?
Okay, I give up. You know more than me about everything...
Canvas a graduate level economics class. Get back to me.
You will be under water as I would be in computer science.
I made no such claim. I have asked you to be specific in your criticism of my knowledge of economics and, in particular, what I have written here. You refuse to do so.
And now you turn to snark.
I cannot intelligently respond if you do not supply specifics. For example, I maintain that our ~125% debt to GDP ratio is too high. Many pure Keynesians would not be so concerned because they generally hold that debt is not a problem. But my concern is WHY we have this debt.
It is one thing to use debt to increase demand and keep an economy fired up and doing productive things. It is quite different if that debt is simply a result of frivolous / wasteful spending.
My position is that the federal government typically does not spend our money wisely. I support debt for infrastructure purposes, for example. That is an enabling mechanism for the economy. It is debt that will likely promote a higher GDP (and thus better sustain the debt).
The specifics matter. If we has a federal government that was wisely investing in factors that increase our GDP, I would be far less concerned about national debt.
You will quibble so this is the end if you can't take 90% agreement.
Example - You sometimes still hold onto Reagan and Bush era Supply Side Economic dogmas and theories regarding taxes, spending and government revenues. Theories which were never accepted by the vast majority of academic economists. They resulted in increased spending on gop pet projects, much greater deficit spending and massive income and wealth inequality.
Also, only after tax dollars compete for goods and services. Therefore, increased tax levels have much less effect on taxpayers actually lives and consumption than you tend to estimate.
Finally, government spending stimulates an economy exactly the same way as tax cuts. They put more money into the economy. Reagan, Bush and Trump tax cuts ran up huge deficits during relatively good economic times. Thus, the normal monetary tools which were needed when a bad business cycle hit were not really available or adequate. Much of the economic pain Americans suffered the last four years was already cooked into the books. The long-term effects of far below market rate long term mortgage interest, for instance, has had and will continue to have long term huge ramifications that it takes an economics degree to scratch.
Often the only responsible economic solutions are painful and unpopular. This is where economics and politics collide. You may argue that I am wrong. Go for it. I think we 90% agree. Sorry if you take offense, but you are way more conservative in understanding of modern economics than you could ever convince me though I do not expect you to concede anything ever to me when challenged...
Discredited? Hardly. In Reagan’s 8 years the US had one of the longest peacetime economic expansions in our history at the time. Inflation was reduced 50-60%, unemployment was reduced near 30% and it led to significant reductions in marginal tax rates.
Strange to call that discredited.
Very strange.
Reagan promised us he could cut government spending and slash deficits and debt if we would only slashed taxes on the rich...
He Lied! You know it. I know it. TiG knows it. Everyone does.
Thx for the backup. Kennedy wasn’t even president three years, Johnson wartime President, Clinton only .2% higher.
Like I noted, one of the longest peacetime economic expansions in history. Not discredited by any reasonable person. Stop trying to negatively spin the positive.
No chart on the inflation and unemployment reductions?
Why?
A better question. Why did you not try to document any of your lame borderline krazy false assertions just as you have demanded of me?
[deleted][✘]
I doubt TiG nor I will ever be in 90% agreement with you...
Did you enjoy your lower inflation, unemployment and interest rates?
No 19% mortgage rate for you eh?
Still waiting for those charts …
[✘]
Lol
[✘]
I see you added more to that post. I reiterate: excluding wartime expansions. Maybe you’ll make that connection the third time I’ve pointed it out.
Are you claiming my numbers are erroneous? Why would you need charts? You should already know since you are the self proclaimed economics expert here.
How bad must your credit be if you ever had a 19% mortgage.
I have owned many homes, always paid cash, no mortgages...
In the 1980's it was common.
I lived in OKC at the time and my boss had 14.75%. He had just purchased the home in '80.
Any freshman econ student studies the details of high interest rates of the early 80’s. No bad credit rating required.
Strange you wouldn’t know that little tidbit
Yes, Ronald Reagan was President from Jan 1981 to Jan 1989...
30 year mortgages peaked in the early 80’s near 19% but if you paid cash for your house, you might not know that.
He must have been a dumbass to sign that, 45 years ago!
The reason a house only worth $200,000 costs $400,000 today is because below market mortgages rates offered speculators and investors allow them to bid up home prices irrationally...
At that point in time, if you wanted to play, you had to pay. Period. That you supposedly paid cash luckily you avoided the mortgage rate of the day.
The only number you provided was a mortgage rate from 1980 which proves ZERO as to "Longest economic expansion"...
Prove That! Show us your chart. Give us the numbers Sparty.
who is offering below market mortgage rates?
What the hell does that have to do with mortgage rates in the early 80’s?
The more you talk the more I begin to be suspect of your Economics bona fides.
Your own chart proves my comment. You just haven’t made the connection.
What in hell do rates from 45 years ago have to do with today?
Junk mortgage shysters.
Thought we got rid of those in the 90’s
You brought Reagan up. You do know when he was president. Right?
No, go back to your original assertion about Reagan, which I see you changed from "Longest" to "One of the longest". SMH...
Updated, the now Longest Economic Expansion in US History began under Barack Obama in 2009 and ended under Trump...
Wrong again. And I quote from 11.2.16 above.
And 11.2.18 above. Etc, etc
Better stop shaking your head …..
Upfront note:
Most of what you have posted are items that I have not even talked about in this forum. So my assumption is that you read a lot into my recent statement where I labeled my views as fiscally conservative. And yes I do not agree with much of what you wrote about my positions because these are not my positions. My detailed comments are below:
I do? Where do I do that? Where have I made any statement whatsoever about supply side economics? I will now, for the first time so that we have something specific to discuss.
First off, Reaganomics dealt with more than the high end tax rate reduction. He also deregulated to make it easier for businesses to operate (good at the time because we needed to boost our GDP but it had negative side effects ... especially in the financial markets). He increased defense spending which pushed money into the economy and also hold the former USSR at bay. Generally good in my book.
Now on the tax cuts. I agree with Reagan revising the tax rates lower; largely based on the fact that our government is wasteful. If our tax dollars were wisely spent, then the higher tax rates might have been appropriate. For example, higher taxes to fund a national health program (federated with federal government setting standards, state-specific implementations, and public/private delivery) is sensible. Outside of that, high functioning (and highly paid) employees should be motivated since they are the key innovators, entrepreneurs, etc. who drive the GDP. What should have been done (and should be done now) is to mitigate runaway accumulation of wealth. Reagan's tax cuts ultimately increased the income disparity (the uber wealthy vs. everyone else). And nobody else has done anything about this either leaving us with the rather extreme situation of modern times.
What estimate? Where do I make this estimate?
But I will weigh in on this now (for the first time). I disagree; increased taxes on individuals reduces their net income; reduces their buying power. Thus it most definitely has an effect on their lives and consumption. By what economic theory do you think taxes on middle class and below does not mitigate consumption and does not affect their lives? Now when we are talking about people who have significant discretionary income (not living paycheck-to-paycheck) tax increases clearly will have less of an effect on their consumption.
Yes it does. Where have I suggested otherwise? But government spending in and of itself is not good (or bad). It depends on the objectives and the present conditions. For example, would you think that this is a good time for Trump to spend money to buy Greenland (of course not possible)? Just spending money to spend money is not something I support. Do you? To wit, my objection to government spending (and increasing our debt) has to do with what they are spending the money on.
You seem to be just tossing out economic theory and implying that these are positions I have taken. And what makes you think one needs a degree in economics to understand that low interest rates spark real estate demand which pushes prices higher (faster than they should be pushed) and produces the potential for a reversal which deflates property values and yields bad side effects ... especially for variable rate mortgage holders? As one example.
Yet again, where have I discussed this except for right now?
Depends on the specific solution and the conditions of the time. Not much one can say to such a general declaration.
Wrong about what? Economics and politics do collide. And of course economic solutions sometimes are painful and unpopular. Is that what you think I might disagree with?
I see myself as a fiscal conservative — meaning that I am for smaller, limited government, responsible spending, responsible debt. As opposed to a fiscal liberal (of which I am not). I do not see our current 125% debt to GDP to be healthy because it is the result of irresponsible spending rather than the result of building capabilities which promote a strong GDP. So logically I am more fiscally conservative than you. If that was your claim, I would have agreed upfront. But you started of with this:
None of this makes any sense given what I have posted in this forum. Where do I even write of zero sum economics ... by any name? That is, where do I even imply that government spending to stimulate the economy is necessarily wrong? That all debt is necessarily wrong? Where do I speak against people putting their money to good productive use rather than hoarding it? Where do I even imply that tax policy is not ultimately redistribution of wealth in effect? Where do I promote extreme wealth concentration (actually this is something I have talked against in this forum)?
I asked you for specifics about what I have actually posted. What I see is even more claims that either do not reflect my position or not something I have written about. So where does this come from?
We probably do agree much more than we disagree on economics, but I hope you recognize from my above comments why I am perplexed at this series of comments from you.
Bottom line:
I do not see any good coming from Trump tax cuts. This is the wrong time for tax cuts. What we should be doing is investing in things such as making the USA the dominant supplier of renewable energy technology and energy itself. Investing in transportation and communication infrastructure. Making us less dependent on other nations for critical resources and products. Encouraging other nations to be more dependent on us. Beefing up our cyber security and ensuring our military is state-of-the-art in applying and defending against advanced technologies (in particular those armed with AI).
I support deregulation to clean up unnecessary, redundant, and ill-conceived constraints on our ability to produce. I do not support deregulation which was designed to protect our environment (sensibly), our financial security, and our health.
There is a video in plain sight six or eight comments up the seed. For some reason we have to put up with your sort of nonsense all day everyday
Ditto.................
The irony is strong.