Trump doing great for the economy.

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
62,831
Reaction score
9,365
Points
2,060
I am honest with myself. I’m not claiming that Trump is cratering the economy. I’m not saying he’s a disaster. That’s the nonsense the people said about Obama (Trump especially).

The weakness in the appeal to authority goes like this:
You: Coach K agrees with me
Me: I disagree with Coach K for these reasons.
You: Lol, you think you know more than Coach K?

You can pretend to win any argument without having to make an argument if you happen to find one “expert” who agrees with you. Further, perhaps I come up with my own expert that disagree. Then we get into a useless argument about who’s expert is better.

Now, if you want to adopt a point made by someone as your own, go ahead, but you have to be able to 1. Explain the point and 2. Be able to defend it. You’re not really doing it.

Also; it’s funny to think of the average American worried about the ownership of corporate IP. If you think that’s what the Trump base isn’t worried about, you don’t know them very well.
Hold on. If you and I disagree on a basketball strategy. If you and I disagree and Coach K breaks the tie, then I win. Sorry. Coach K is arguably the GOAT. When my kids argue and I break the tie, then yes I am the authority. That is how life works. I have made several points, you disagreed, I broke the tie with the CEO from the Carlyle Group. He is not even a Trump guy. Who is an "average American"? I am sure most educated Americans do worry about it.
LOLOL

The tightwing Carlyle group is your tie breaker? The group that was connected to the Bush family?


David Rubenstein - Political - LittleSis

Here are his donations....yeah...real (R) he is. :290968001256257790-final::290968001256257790-final::290968001256257790-final::290968001256257790-final::290968001256257790-final::290968001256257790-final::290968001256257790-final::290968001256257790-final:
Carlyle Group - Political - LittleSis
Are we discussing the group or Rubenstein. You were wrong. Rubenstein is not a Trump guy. Many in his company could be but they also give a notable percentage the Democrats.
LOL

I just showed you the leanings of the Carlyle Group -- and using your source. :eusa_doh:

I see a lot more red than blue.

Screenshot_20200210-133838_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
OP
AzogtheDefiler

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
26,705
Reaction score
5,341
Points
290
Location
Boston, MA
Carter? Reagan? I was born in 1980. First time I paid a minute attention to politics was in 2000 when I voted for Gore.
You should have studied history at your overpriced colleges.
Why? History is a worthless skill unless you're rich and don't need to earn a living. I studied business and finance. Hence I get to sit at airports frequently but get to learn what many businesses do all over the country. Fun times! YAY!!!!!!

Colleges are overpriced. I agree. But that is because students can borrow money freely and pay the overpriced fees.
Colleges aren’t overpriced for the students they want. A smart student pays far lower prices than an average one. In a way, it’s free market capitalism in education. Colleges want good students and they want average students who pay the bills for everyone else.

History is very useful to everyone. I don’t think you got your money’s worth.
To me they are overpriced. But no one is forcing students to pay those prices. Colleges want students who will receive a high paying job when graduating and can give back and make them look better. I sit on a board of one. I know. History is useful but not as a college major. That is a waste of money. You didn't pay for my college, I did, so with all due respect your opinion is irrelevant. My education garnered me a job to support my family and allowed my wife to stay home and raise our kids for 10 yrs. So IMO I got my "money's worth". Plus my school kicks ass in college hoops! Go Devils!!!
Didn’t say anything about a history major. I think knowing history is what sets the informed public apart from the uninformed public.

Alumni donations account for a small percentage of their their funding. 10% in 2017.
Personal giving pushes donations to colleges and universities to new level in 2017

They lower their prices for better students, jack them up for worse students. The average is able to cover the bills but it lets dumb rich kids take up spots in higher education that would be better served by just trying to take the best you can find. The whole system is distortionary and one of the ways that our society perpetuates wealth by heritage. Anyway, that’s just my soapbox.
Colleges are ranked by many metrics but 90% =

1) Average SAT or GMAT scores (Undergrad vs Grad)
2) Average salary post graduation

So they will throw some money at better students as it gets them higher average SAT or GMAT scores and post graduation they count on these students to generate higher salaries. If my daughter scores a 1400 on her SATs in 5 years she will get some $$$ as schools will pine for her. If she scores 1000 she will pay full freight and go to a lesser school...then there all these things in between.
 
OP
AzogtheDefiler

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
26,705
Reaction score
5,341
Points
290
Location
Boston, MA
Hold on. If you and I disagree on a basketball strategy. If you and I disagree and Coach K breaks the tie, then I win. Sorry. Coach K is arguably the GOAT. When my kids argue and I break the tie, then yes I am the authority. That is how life works. I have made several points, you disagreed, I broke the tie with the CEO from the Carlyle Group. He is not even a Trump guy. Who is an "average American"? I am sure most educated Americans do worry about it.
LOLOL

The tightwing Carlyle group is your tie breaker? The group that was connected to the Bush family?


David Rubenstein - Political - LittleSis

Here are his donations....yeah...real (R) he is. :290968001256257790-final::290968001256257790-final::290968001256257790-final::290968001256257790-final::290968001256257790-final::290968001256257790-final::290968001256257790-final::290968001256257790-final:
Carlyle Group - Political - LittleSis
Are we discussing the group or Rubenstein. You were wrong. Rubenstein is not a Trump guy. Many in his company could be but they also give a notable percentage the Democrats.
LOL

I just showed you the leanings of the Carlyle Group -- and using your source. :eusa_doh:

I see a lot more red than blue.

View attachment 305898
Are we discussing Carlyle or Rubenstein? He is not a Trump guy was what I said and he is not. He has not given to a R? ever?
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
9,798
Reaction score
1,908
Points
150
You should have studied history at your overpriced colleges.
Why? History is a worthless skill unless you're rich and don't need to earn a living. I studied business and finance. Hence I get to sit at airports frequently but get to learn what many businesses do all over the country. Fun times! YAY!!!!!!

Colleges are overpriced. I agree. But that is because students can borrow money freely and pay the overpriced fees.
Colleges aren’t overpriced for the students they want. A smart student pays far lower prices than an average one. In a way, it’s free market capitalism in education. Colleges want good students and they want average students who pay the bills for everyone else.

History is very useful to everyone. I don’t think you got your money’s worth.
To me they are overpriced. But no one is forcing students to pay those prices. Colleges want students who will receive a high paying job when graduating and can give back and make them look better. I sit on a board of one. I know. History is useful but not as a college major. That is a waste of money. You didn't pay for my college, I did, so with all due respect your opinion is irrelevant. My education garnered me a job to support my family and allowed my wife to stay home and raise our kids for 10 yrs. So IMO I got my "money's worth". Plus my school kicks ass in college hoops! Go Devils!!!
Didn’t say anything about a history major. I think knowing history is what sets the informed public apart from the uninformed public.

Alumni donations account for a small percentage of their their funding. 10% in 2017.
Personal giving pushes donations to colleges and universities to new level in 2017

They lower their prices for better students, jack them up for worse students. The average is able to cover the bills but it lets dumb rich kids take up spots in higher education that would be better served by just trying to take the best you can find. The whole system is distortionary and one of the ways that our society perpetuates wealth by heritage. Anyway, that’s just my soapbox.
Colleges are ranked by many metrics but 90% =

1) Average SAT or GMAT scores (Undergrad vs Grad)
2) Average salary post graduation

So they will throw some money at better students as it gets them higher average SAT or GMAT scores and post graduation they count on these students to generate higher salaries. If my daughter scores a 1400 on her SATs in 5 years she will get some $$$ as schools will pine for her. If she scores 1000 she will pay full freight and go to a lesser school...then there all these things in between.
Post-graduation salaries can be self perpetuating. One of the most valuable things gained in college is a social network. Go to an expensive college with rich kids will afford different opportunities than even the brightest kid in a school without the same student body socioeconomic makeup.
 
OP
AzogtheDefiler

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
26,705
Reaction score
5,341
Points
290
Location
Boston, MA
Why? History is a worthless skill unless you're rich and don't need to earn a living. I studied business and finance. Hence I get to sit at airports frequently but get to learn what many businesses do all over the country. Fun times! YAY!!!!!!

Colleges are overpriced. I agree. But that is because students can borrow money freely and pay the overpriced fees.
Colleges aren’t overpriced for the students they want. A smart student pays far lower prices than an average one. In a way, it’s free market capitalism in education. Colleges want good students and they want average students who pay the bills for everyone else.

History is very useful to everyone. I don’t think you got your money’s worth.
To me they are overpriced. But no one is forcing students to pay those prices. Colleges want students who will receive a high paying job when graduating and can give back and make them look better. I sit on a board of one. I know. History is useful but not as a college major. That is a waste of money. You didn't pay for my college, I did, so with all due respect your opinion is irrelevant. My education garnered me a job to support my family and allowed my wife to stay home and raise our kids for 10 yrs. So IMO I got my "money's worth". Plus my school kicks ass in college hoops! Go Devils!!!
Didn’t say anything about a history major. I think knowing history is what sets the informed public apart from the uninformed public.

Alumni donations account for a small percentage of their their funding. 10% in 2017.
Personal giving pushes donations to colleges and universities to new level in 2017

They lower their prices for better students, jack them up for worse students. The average is able to cover the bills but it lets dumb rich kids take up spots in higher education that would be better served by just trying to take the best you can find. The whole system is distortionary and one of the ways that our society perpetuates wealth by heritage. Anyway, that’s just my soapbox.
Colleges are ranked by many metrics but 90% =

1) Average SAT or GMAT scores (Undergrad vs Grad)
2) Average salary post graduation

So they will throw some money at better students as it gets them higher average SAT or GMAT scores and post graduation they count on these students to generate higher salaries. If my daughter scores a 1400 on her SATs in 5 years she will get some $$$ as schools will pine for her. If she scores 1000 she will pay full freight and go to a lesser school...then there all these things in between.
Post-graduation salaries can be self perpetuating. One of the most valuable things gained in college is a social network. Go to an expensive college with rich kids will afford different opportunities than even the brightest kid in a school without the same student body socioeconomic makeup.
That is 100% true and why you pay more for Yale than for Clemson.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
9,798
Reaction score
1,908
Points
150
Colleges aren’t overpriced for the students they want. A smart student pays far lower prices than an average one. In a way, it’s free market capitalism in education. Colleges want good students and they want average students who pay the bills for everyone else.

History is very useful to everyone. I don’t think you got your money’s worth.
To me they are overpriced. But no one is forcing students to pay those prices. Colleges want students who will receive a high paying job when graduating and can give back and make them look better. I sit on a board of one. I know. History is useful but not as a college major. That is a waste of money. You didn't pay for my college, I did, so with all due respect your opinion is irrelevant. My education garnered me a job to support my family and allowed my wife to stay home and raise our kids for 10 yrs. So IMO I got my "money's worth". Plus my school kicks ass in college hoops! Go Devils!!!
Didn’t say anything about a history major. I think knowing history is what sets the informed public apart from the uninformed public.

Alumni donations account for a small percentage of their their funding. 10% in 2017.
Personal giving pushes donations to colleges and universities to new level in 2017

They lower their prices for better students, jack them up for worse students. The average is able to cover the bills but it lets dumb rich kids take up spots in higher education that would be better served by just trying to take the best you can find. The whole system is distortionary and one of the ways that our society perpetuates wealth by heritage. Anyway, that’s just my soapbox.
Colleges are ranked by many metrics but 90% =

1) Average SAT or GMAT scores (Undergrad vs Grad)
2) Average salary post graduation

So they will throw some money at better students as it gets them higher average SAT or GMAT scores and post graduation they count on these students to generate higher salaries. If my daughter scores a 1400 on her SATs in 5 years she will get some $$$ as schools will pine for her. If she scores 1000 she will pay full freight and go to a lesser school...then there all these things in between.
Post-graduation salaries can be self perpetuating. One of the most valuable things gained in college is a social network. Go to an expensive college with rich kids will afford different opportunities than even the brightest kid in a school without the same student body socioeconomic makeup.
That is 100% true and why you pay more for Yale than for Clemson.
Well, Clemson is a public university, but let’s look at Yale.

Yale has an endowment of $26 billion. They don’t really need student tuition (or not much, tuition is <20% of their revenues). At Yale, their tuition is based on how much parents can pay. A student with a family who has $75k income pays nothing (generally speaking). I wish all schools were the same way, but only the elite colleges can afford to do so.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
15,340
Reaction score
1,851
Points
290
Even Yahoo! published an article stating as such. Excellent! - This is from the CEO of the Carlyle Group.

“He wouldn't be the first politician to exaggerate how his policies have been better than maybe they have been, but I think his policies have worked or something's working because the economy's doing well,” Rubenstein said. “Unemployment is low, interest rates are low, consumer spending is up, business spending is in pretty good shape, stock markets are at record highs.”

“What more can you ask of somebody is what I would say,” he added. “So there's a lot of consternation about him personally and some of his policies, but in the economy, it's hard to criticize him on the economy.”
The recovery started under Obama not Trump. The unemployment rate when Trump took over was 4.7%. Interest rates were low as well. Consumer spending was rising.
Rates started rising under Trump, they were not at historic lows. Recovery started under Bush by your logic as his admin passed TARP and began lowering the rates to the bottom, which cause stocks to jump up.
Rates did not rise very much and the Fed has reverted back to cutting rates. The recovery started under Obama and that is a fact. What has happened under Trump was a continuation of that. The last President who had a major effect on the economy was Ronald Reagan and his large across the board tax cuts when the economy was in recession.
Who Really Dug Us Out of the Great Recession?

Bush had a lot to do with it too. So now what?
The bottom line is that Trump has had nothing to do with it.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
15,340
Reaction score
1,851
Points
290
Even Yahoo! published an article stating as such. Excellent! - This is from the CEO of the Carlyle Group.

“He wouldn't be the first politician to exaggerate how his policies have been better than maybe they have been, but I think his policies have worked or something's working because the economy's doing well,” Rubenstein said. “Unemployment is low, interest rates are low, consumer spending is up, business spending is in pretty good shape, stock markets are at record highs.”

“What more can you ask of somebody is what I would say,” he added. “So there's a lot of consternation about him personally and some of his policies, but in the economy, it's hard to criticize him on the economy.”
The recovery started under Obama not Trump. The unemployment rate when Trump took over was 4.7%. Interest rates were low as well. Consumer spending was rising.
Rates started rising under Trump, they were not at historic lows. Recovery started under Bush by your logic as his admin passed TARP and began lowering the rates to the bottom, which cause stocks to jump up.
Rates did not rise very much and the Fed has reverted back to cutting rates. The recovery started under Obama and that is a fact. What has happened under Trump was a continuation of that. The last President who had a major effect on the economy was Ronald Reagan and his large across the board tax cuts when the economy was in recession.
Eh, the effects of Reagan’s tax cuts are also overblown. Politicians always overstate the effectiveness of their policies.

Volker has a far bigger impact in turning the economy around. It’s just that most of the pain associated with the necessary policies is attributed (unfairly I think) to Carter.
Ronald Reagan's large tax cuts provided a positive jolt to the economy. The economy started taking off after the last part of the tax cuts took effect.
 
OP
AzogtheDefiler

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
26,705
Reaction score
5,341
Points
290
Location
Boston, MA
To me they are overpriced. But no one is forcing students to pay those prices. Colleges want students who will receive a high paying job when graduating and can give back and make them look better. I sit on a board of one. I know. History is useful but not as a college major. That is a waste of money. You didn't pay for my college, I did, so with all due respect your opinion is irrelevant. My education garnered me a job to support my family and allowed my wife to stay home and raise our kids for 10 yrs. So IMO I got my "money's worth". Plus my school kicks ass in college hoops! Go Devils!!!
Didn’t say anything about a history major. I think knowing history is what sets the informed public apart from the uninformed public.

Alumni donations account for a small percentage of their their funding. 10% in 2017.
Personal giving pushes donations to colleges and universities to new level in 2017

They lower their prices for better students, jack them up for worse students. The average is able to cover the bills but it lets dumb rich kids take up spots in higher education that would be better served by just trying to take the best you can find. The whole system is distortionary and one of the ways that our society perpetuates wealth by heritage. Anyway, that’s just my soapbox.
Colleges are ranked by many metrics but 90% =

1) Average SAT or GMAT scores (Undergrad vs Grad)
2) Average salary post graduation

So they will throw some money at better students as it gets them higher average SAT or GMAT scores and post graduation they count on these students to generate higher salaries. If my daughter scores a 1400 on her SATs in 5 years she will get some $$$ as schools will pine for her. If she scores 1000 she will pay full freight and go to a lesser school...then there all these things in between.
Post-graduation salaries can be self perpetuating. One of the most valuable things gained in college is a social network. Go to an expensive college with rich kids will afford different opportunities than even the brightest kid in a school without the same student body socioeconomic makeup.
That is 100% true and why you pay more for Yale than for Clemson.
Well, Clemson is a public university, but let’s look at Yale.

Yale has an endowment of $26 billion. They don’t really need student tuition (or not much, tuition is <20% of their revenues). At Yale, their tuition is based on how much parents can pay. A student with a family who has $75k income pays nothing (generally speaking). I wish all schools were the same way, but only the elite colleges can afford to do so.
My point was that your network is better coming out of Yale vs. Clemson or even Boston College.
 
OP
AzogtheDefiler

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
26,705
Reaction score
5,341
Points
290
Location
Boston, MA
Even Yahoo! published an article stating as such. Excellent! - This is from the CEO of the Carlyle Group.

“He wouldn't be the first politician to exaggerate how his policies have been better than maybe they have been, but I think his policies have worked or something's working because the economy's doing well,” Rubenstein said. “Unemployment is low, interest rates are low, consumer spending is up, business spending is in pretty good shape, stock markets are at record highs.”

“What more can you ask of somebody is what I would say,” he added. “So there's a lot of consternation about him personally and some of his policies, but in the economy, it's hard to criticize him on the economy.”
The recovery started under Obama not Trump. The unemployment rate when Trump took over was 4.7%. Interest rates were low as well. Consumer spending was rising.
Rates started rising under Trump, they were not at historic lows. Recovery started under Bush by your logic as his admin passed TARP and began lowering the rates to the bottom, which cause stocks to jump up.
Rates did not rise very much and the Fed has reverted back to cutting rates. The recovery started under Obama and that is a fact. What has happened under Trump was a continuation of that. The last President who had a major effect on the economy was Ronald Reagan and his large across the board tax cuts when the economy was in recession.
Who Really Dug Us Out of the Great Recession?

Bush had a lot to do with it too. So now what?
The bottom line is that Trump has had nothing to do with it.
Opinions vary. Especially those of my clients.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
41,160
Reaction score
5,007
Points
1,830
Why do you post graphs that pr



ove that all of this started long before your god took the White House.
Because he can’t tell the difference. He’s blinded by devotion.
Bullshit
How do you explain this?
Carlyle's David Rubenstein: Trump 'policies seem to be working' to boost the US economy
No one talks in such a manner to a MARINE!
 

LaDairis

Silver Member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
3,466
Reaction score
239
Points
90
STFU, you racist POS. So out of 100 posters here you claim 95 do not understand that 2+2=4? You're an idiot. Go jump in a frozen racist lake.


USMB definition alert

Racist = someone who notices that Democrats and post 1998 Republicans are horribly bad at BASIC MATH and do not understand things like INTEREST RATES
 
OP
AzogtheDefiler

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
26,705
Reaction score
5,341
Points
290
Location
Boston, MA
STFU, you racist POS. So out of 100 posters here you claim 95 do not understand that 2+2=4? You're an idiot. Go jump in a frozen racist lake.


USMB definition alert

Racist = someone who notices that Democrats and post 1998 Republicans are horribly bad at BASIC MATH and do not understand things like INTEREST RATES
Racist is someone who blames Jews for all of the world's ills and that is you. I do not believe you're very proficient at basic math. Prove me wrong.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
9,798
Reaction score
1,908
Points
150

ph3iron

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
6,686
Reaction score
292
Points
85
Even Yahoo! published an article stating as such. Excellent! - This is from the CEO of the Carlyle Group.

“He wouldn't be the first politician to exaggerate how his policies have been better than maybe they have been, but I think his policies have worked or something's working because the economy's doing well,” Rubenstein said. “Unemployment is low, interest rates are low, consumer spending is up, business spending is in pretty good shape, stock markets are at record highs.”

“What more can you ask of somebody is what I would say,” he added. “So there's a lot of consternation about him personally and some of his policies, but in the economy, it's hard to criticize him on the economy.”
Data would be helpful
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
9,798
Reaction score
1,908
Points
150
Didn’t say anything about a history major. I think knowing history is what sets the informed public apart from the uninformed public.

Alumni donations account for a small percentage of their their funding. 10% in 2017.
Personal giving pushes donations to colleges and universities to new level in 2017

They lower their prices for better students, jack them up for worse students. The average is able to cover the bills but it lets dumb rich kids take up spots in higher education that would be better served by just trying to take the best you can find. The whole system is distortionary and one of the ways that our society perpetuates wealth by heritage. Anyway, that’s just my soapbox.
Colleges are ranked by many metrics but 90% =

1) Average SAT or GMAT scores (Undergrad vs Grad)
2) Average salary post graduation

So they will throw some money at better students as it gets them higher average SAT or GMAT scores and post graduation they count on these students to generate higher salaries. If my daughter scores a 1400 on her SATs in 5 years she will get some $$$ as schools will pine for her. If she scores 1000 she will pay full freight and go to a lesser school...then there all these things in between.
Post-graduation salaries can be self perpetuating. One of the most valuable things gained in college is a social network. Go to an expensive college with rich kids will afford different opportunities than even the brightest kid in a school without the same student body socioeconomic makeup.
That is 100% true and why you pay more for Yale than for Clemson.
Well, Clemson is a public university, but let’s look at Yale.

Yale has an endowment of $26 billion. They don’t really need student tuition (or not much, tuition is <20% of their revenues). At Yale, their tuition is based on how much parents can pay. A student with a family who has $75k income pays nothing (generally speaking). I wish all schools were the same way, but only the elite colleges can afford to do so.
My point was that your network is better coming out of Yale vs. Clemson or even Boston College.
Sure. But it doesn’t cost more to get access to it. In fact, for an average family, it costs nothing. That’s not true for BU or Clemson. All you have to do is be exceptional. I wish it were that way for every college.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
9,798
Reaction score
1,908
Points
150
Even Yahoo! published an article stating as such. Excellent! - This is from the CEO of the Carlyle Group.

“He wouldn't be the first politician to exaggerate how his policies have been better than maybe they have been, but I think his policies have worked or something's working because the economy's doing well,” Rubenstein said. “Unemployment is low, interest rates are low, consumer spending is up, business spending is in pretty good shape, stock markets are at record highs.”

“What more can you ask of somebody is what I would say,” he added. “So there's a lot of consternation about him personally and some of his policies, but in the economy, it's hard to criticize him on the economy.”
The recovery started under Obama not Trump. The unemployment rate when Trump took over was 4.7%. Interest rates were low as well. Consumer spending was rising.
Rates started rising under Trump, they were not at historic lows. Recovery started under Bush by your logic as his admin passed TARP and began lowering the rates to the bottom, which cause stocks to jump up.
Rates did not rise very much and the Fed has reverted back to cutting rates. The recovery started under Obama and that is a fact. What has happened under Trump was a continuation of that. The last President who had a major effect on the economy was Ronald Reagan and his large across the board tax cuts when the economy was in recession.
Eh, the effects of Reagan’s tax cuts are also overblown. Politicians always overstate the effectiveness of their policies.

Volker has a far bigger impact in turning the economy around. It’s just that most of the pain associated with the necessary policies is attributed (unfairly I think) to Carter.
Ronald Reagan's large tax cuts provided a positive jolt to the economy. The economy started taking off after the last part of the tax cuts took effect.
Maybe, or maybe we just stated to crawl out of the problems with the money supply and it just so happened to occur at the same time as the tax cuts.
 

LaDairis

Silver Member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
3,466
Reaction score
239
Points
90
Racist is someone who blames Jews

Some Jews are very decent people who tell the truth, and contribute to society overall. You just worship the ones who did 911....

and racist applies to those who look down on the target of bigotry. Jews, if you haven't noticed, are concentrated at the very top of society, once again outing you as a total moron....

Try READING at some point.....


Einstein Letter Warning Of
Zionist Fascism In Israel
Letter That Albert Einstein Sent to the New York Times
1948, Protesting the Visit of Menachem Begin

11-1-4

Letters to the Editor
New York Times
December 4, 1948
TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughoutthe world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.
Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement. The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.
Attack on Arab Village
A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants ? 240men, women, and children - and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin. The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.
Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model. During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.
The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.
Discrepancies Seen
The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin's efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.
The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.
ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ
HANNAH ARENDT
ABRAHAM BRICK
RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO
ALBERT EINSTEIN
HERMAN EISEN, M.D.
HAYIM FINEMAN
M. GALLEN, M.D.
H.H. HARRIS
ZELIG S. HARRIS
SIDNEY HOOK
FRED KARUSH
BRURIA KAUFMAN
IRMA L. LINDHEIM
NACHMAN MAISEL
SEYMOUR MELMAN
MYER D. MENDELSON
M.D., HARRY M. OSLINSKY
SAMUEL PITLICK
FRITZ ROHRLICH
LOUIS P. ROCKER
RUTH SAGIS
ITZHAK SANKOWSKY
I.J. SHOENBERG
SAMUEL SHUMAN
M. SINGER
IRMA WOLFE
STEFAN WOLF.
New York, Dec. 2, 1948
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
41,160
Reaction score
5,007
Points
1,830

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top