Some Thoughts On McConnell

[Albion]

The problem: that increase in the federal deficit during the strong economy during 2019, when it should have been falling in size.

See post just above.

Yeh, that's fine. But it's an issue in itself. Why my pointing out that Obama was much worse where it counts--the standing debt of the nation--should cause such a 'push back' I cannot imagine.

 

[Halbhh]

Yeh, that's fine. But it's an issue in itself. Why my pointing out that Obama was much worse where it counts--the standing debt of the nation--should cause such a 'push back' I cannot imagine.

You say Obama was worse. Ok.

Ok, since you hold Obama responsible for the gigantic deficits of 2009-2011 -- the Great Recession deficits... which recession Obama did not begin, did not originate.

Then, using your standard, Trump is responsible for this gigantic deficit of 2020.

Your standard you have just used -- you are making Trump responsible for this titanic 2020 deficit.

Is that fair?

If it isn't fair to hold Trump responsible for the 2020 deficit, then it also isn't fair for Obama to be held responsible for the deficits of 2009-2011 out of the Great Recession that started before he took office.

 

[Albion]

You say Obama was worse. Ok.

Ok, since you hold Obama responsible for the gigantic deficits of 2009-2011 -- the Great Recession deficits... which recession Obama did not begin, did not originate.

Yes, but the increase which occurred on his watch, remember, was greater than all the previous administrations combined, and that is not something that can be just brushed aside in any discussion of this topic.

In addition, it is fair to say that if he inherited a problem, it is also fair and relevant to point out that in eight years he did not solve it. He, in fact, took as many steps back (Cash for Clunkers, "shovel-ready" projects that did not exist, etc.) as steps he took toward solving the problem.

Then, using your standard, Trump is responsible for this gigantic deficit of 2020.

Partially responsible, perhaps. The Democratic governors, Pelosi, et al who worked so hard to destroy the economy in the name of addressing the virus must share in that.

 

[Halbhh]

Yes, but the increase which occurred on his watch, remember, was greater than all the previous administrations combined, and that is not something that can be just brushed aside in any discussion of this topic.

In addition, it is fair to say that if he inherited a problem, it is also fair and relevant to point out that in eight years he did not solve it. He, in fact, took as many steps back (Cash for Clunkers, "shovel-ready" projects that did not exist, etc.) as steps he took toward solving the problem.


Partially responsible, perhaps. The Democratic governors, Pelosi, et al who worked so hard to destroy the economy in the name of addressing the virus must share in that.

You are saying Trump is "partially responsible, perhaps" ?

But it sounds like you hold Obama entirely responsible for the 2010-2011 deficits, by your wording:

Obama still does hold the record

So, is Obama responsible for the 2009-2011 deficit, or only "partially responsible, perhaps"?

 

[Albion]

You are saying Trump is "partially responsible, perhaps" ?

That's a reasonable argument IMO. I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand. He would probably say he preferred to do elsewise except that Pelosi and Schumer made it impossible to enact essential legislation without also buying some of their spendthrift spending programs written into the same legislation. And the virus was a unique challenge to financial stability.

But, yes, the claim that he didn't hold the line well enough is worth entertaining.

But it sounds like you hold Obama entirely responsible for the 2010-2011 deficits, by your wording:

Not really. Keep in mind that I was presenting such information largely in response to the attack upon Trump who, if viewed on anything like a level playing field, was not nearly as fiscally reckless as Obama had been.

So, is Obama responsible for the 2009-2011 deficit, or only "partially responsible, perhaps"?

What I said was that he made things worse in some ways and that in twice the time that Trump was in office, the "Great Recession" held on. He did not solve it. It became the longest recession in American history. How that can be just brushed aside in a discussion like this one is impossible to justify IMO.

 

[Halbhh]

That's a reasonable argument IMO. I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand. He would probably say he preferred to do elsewise except that Pelosi and Schumer made it impossible to enact essential legislation without also buying some of their spendthrift spending programs written into the same legislation. And the virus was a unique challenge to financial stability.

But, yes, the claim that he didn't hold the line well enough is worth entertaining.


Not really. Keep in mind that I was presenting such information largely in response to the attack upon Trump who, if viewed on anything like a level playing field, was not nearly as fiscally reckless as Obama had been.


What I said was that he made things worse in some ways and that in twice the time that Trump was in office, the "Great Recession" held on. He did not solve it. It became the longest recession in American history. How that can be just brushed aside in a discussion like this one is impossible to justify IMO.

A "depression" is a "recession", just a severe one.

The longest recession was then of course the "Great Depression" of the 1930s (as we all know lasted very long).

The 'Great Recession' of 2008-2010 lasted about a year and 1/2, before growth resumed. What made it a 'Great' (huge) recession was the severe steepness of the downturn, due to the housing bubble of 2003-2008 collapsing.

e.g. -- Since 1900, the average recession has lasted 15 months while the average expansion has lasted 48 months, Geibel says. The Great Recession of 2008 and 2009, which lasted for 18 months, was the longest period of economic decline since World War II. How Long Do Downturns Last?.

 

[Speedwell]

What I said was that he made things worse in some ways and that in twice the time that Trump was in office, the "Great Recession" held on. He did not solve it. It became the longest recession in American history. How that can be just brushed aside in a discussion like this one is impossible to justify IMO.

No hard feelings, but basic honesty requires that someone call you on that fib. every time you repeat it. I see no need to repost the basic data which proves your statement wrong--you will just ignore it again. Carry on.

 

[Halbhh]

Can I ask you something Albion?

You are giving me a kind of impression (seeming appearance) -- making me wonder, usure -- that you may think Obama was partly or even mostly responsible for the huge economic recession of 2008-2010.

Is that what you do think?

Do you think there was not a housing bubble that collapsed and caused that "Great Recession" and/or the housing bubble had not much to do with the Great Recession?

I'm trying to guess, from the seeming implications of how you are talking about Obama, and this is the what it seems as if you are assuming, in appearance.

That's a reasonable argument IMO. I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand. He would probably say he preferred to do elsewise except that Pelosi and Schumer made it impossible to enact essential legislation without also buying some of their spendthrift spending programs written into the same legislation. And the virus was a unique challenge to financial stability.

But, yes, the claim that he didn't hold the line well enough is worth entertaining.


Not really. Keep in mind that I was presenting such information largely in response to the attack upon Trump who, if viewed on anything like a level playing field, was not nearly as fiscally reckless as Obama had been.


What I said was that he made things worse in some ways and that in twice the time that Trump was in office, the "Great Recession" held on. He did not solve it. It became the longest recession in American history. How that can be just brushed aside in a discussion like this one is impossible to justify IMO.

 

[Albion]

Can I ask you something?

You are giving me a kind of impression (seeming appearance) that you think Obama was partly or even mostly responsible for the huge economic recession of 2008-2010.

Good grief. How many times do I have to go over this? I've already taken several different approaches when explaining it, all in hopes that one of them will click with you.

Rather than go over it once more, I will ask you please to read what I wrote in the previous several posts. Thank you.

 

[wing2000]

I think McConnell is done with Trump. He is reportedly not taking Trump's calls.

We'll see what happens should the House sends the article of impeachment over to the Senate....

 

[Halbhh]

How many times do I have to go over this?

Once. One time will do. I've not ever asked you that question, nor seen you answer it.

You are giving me a kind of impression (seeming appearance) -- making me wonder, usure -- that you may think Obama was partly or even mostly responsible for the huge economic recession of 2008-2010.

Is that what you do think?

Do you think there was not a housing bubble that collapsed and caused that "Great Recession" and/or the housing bubble had not much to do with the Great Recession?

I'm trying to guess, from the seeming implications of how you are talking about Obama, and this is the what it seems as if you are assuming, in appearance.

 

[Albion]

I think McConnell is done with Trump. He is reportedly not taking Trump's calls.

We'll see what happens should the House sends the article of impeachment over to the Senate....

Reportedly, McConnell is angry for several reasons, one being that he thinks the reputation of the Party is being damaged by Trump. But if he thinks that facilitating a Soviet-style Purge trial of the President in his last week in office will lead to a resurgence of popularity for the GOP, he's much dimmer than I had thought before all of this hit the fan.

As Senator Tim Scott is reported to have observed, the haters will instead be energized if they prevail with this gimmick.

That will no doubt lead to further assaults by them on American institutions, including fair elections, which the GOP must have in order to have any future.

 

[wing2000]

Reportedly, McConnell is angry for several reasons, one being that he thinks the reputation of the Party is being damaged by Trump. But if he thinks that facilitating a Soviet-style Purge trial of the President in his last week in office will lead to a resurgence of popularity for the GOP, he's much dimmer than I had thought before all of this hit the fan.

As Senator Tim Scott is reported to have observed, the haters will instead be energized if they prevail with this gimmick.

That will no doubt lead to further assaults by them on American institutions, including fair elections, which the GOP must have in order to have any future.

If it were a "Soviet-style purge" the President and his supporters would already be dead -- or at the very least, in a cold Siberian prison.

As for hate, it was on horrific display last Wednesday as a mob assaulted the American legislative branch.

 

[Halbhh]

Imagine if the protestors Trump sent to march on Congress had stayed peaceful.

Imagine that different situation.

What Trump was asking them to do was to be "strong" and not be "weak" -- to not let Congress do what it was doing.

Think on that.

Our Congress is literally the "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

Congress is that 'of the people'.

We don't have another "of the people" except for our chosen representatives -- Congress.

Congress is literally the American peoples' chosen representatives that we the people voted into office to represent us.

That's what Trump wanted to stop -- the "of the people" doing what the people sent them to do.

 

[Belk]

Reportedly, McConnell is angry for several reasons, one being that he thinks the reputation of the Party is being damaged by Trump. But if he thinks that facilitating a Soviet-style Purge trial of the President in his last week in office will lead to a resurgence of popularity for the GOP, he's much dimmer than I had thought before all of this hit the fan.

As Senator Tim Scott is reported to have observed, the haters will instead be energized if they prevail with this gimmick.

That will no doubt lead to further assaults by them on American institutions, including fair elections, which the GOP must have in order to have any future.

A what? Where is this coming from?

 

[Albion]

A what? Where is this coming from?

You have have a point there. The Purge trials in the Soviet Union included at least a pretense of holding a trial before sentencing. There's nothing like that happening in the case of the Trump impeachment planning.

A decision on the part of the Senate to name some day "Congrats to Alabama's National Football Championship Day" would most likely require more time and testimony than bumping off the duly elected President of the United States will take, if things go as planned.

 

[Halbhh]

There's nothing like that happening in the case of the Trump impeachment planning.

ah, but listen for yourself, if you choose, to that very thing, to hear speakers you will agree with (perhaps), and some you won't (perhaps):

Live Stream of 2nd Impeachment Vote on the current U.S. President

 

[wing2000]

You have have a point there. The Purge trials in the Soviet Union included at least a pretense of holding a trial before sentencing. There's nothing like that happening in the case of the Trump impeachment planning.

A decision on the part of the Senate to name some day "Congrats to Alabama's National Football Championship Day" would most likely require more time and testimony than bumping off the duly elected President of the United States will take, if things go as planned.

As I recall from civic's class, the Senate shall hold the trial. Your analogy is a bit premature.

 

[Albion]

As I recall from civic's class, the Senate shall hold the trial. Your analogy is a bit premature.

I'm sure that they will claim to have had something that could pass for one, but that doesn't make it so. Corners are being cut with proper procedure almost daily in Washington these days, and the time available for a real trial is extremely limited as you probably know. Even liberal analysts are saying that. But we'll see.

 

[wing2000]

It's very unlikely the Senate will conduct a trial prior to January 20th - given it would take an unanimous vote to go back into session prior to January 19. That may change, however, based on the President's behavior between now and his departure date. He is a current and danger to this country. The House is right to move forward since the Vice President was unwilling to even attempt to carry out his obligations to remove an unstable President.