How will Trump lower prices?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Ronstar, Nov 11, 2024.

  1. Gdawg007

    Gdawg007 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,227
    Likes Received:
    1,693
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The president doesn't control the cost to produce crude oil. Labor and the oil companies do. Americans work for more than Saudi's do and American oil companies like making lots of profits too. Hence the cost is higher to produce it domestically and thankfully always will be. Nothing Biden did changed the cost, he simply paused handing out leases of which the oil companies had literally 7 thousand or so stockpiled. No impact to the cost. The reason it's up to 68 today is the same reason prices always rise.

    Yes, but who cares? Capital in the private sector doesn't carry any more value than someone spending money. In fact, the US economy is 70% consumer spending. Capital is not consumer spending, nor does it drive it. It's used to meet demand that's already there from consumers.

    I think such a strike is a far lower probability, orders of magnitude lower, compared to other concerns like a governor wanting to grab headlines. That happens every day. Decapitation strikes do not.

    Baby Boomers are defined as being born from 1946 to 1964. That's the only definition there is give or take a year. Either way, Trump is an early boomer by every definition. The new generation has that history, it's written down but sadly is crippled by people who like whitewashing American history for school kids so sadly few generations have ever gotten US history unless they pursued it in college. As for 1940's history, I think they can imagine drones and tactical nukes. After all, any guided missile is drone and those existed in the 1940's. And nukes were being developed in the 1940's, a tactical nuke is simply a small nuke deployed on the battlefield as opposed to a strategic weapon which ideally is leverage and deterrent.
     
  2. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    163,033
    Likes Received:
    42,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Presidents do not singularly control the budget in fact Congress pulls the purse strings.

    View attachment 268000

    There was a liquidity problem which Bush took care of with TARP. The recession didn't start until year after the Dems took back the Congress and lame ducked Bush. And you are attributing the 2009 budget deficit to Bush when in fact he had no part of it and it was signed into law by Obama. Simply attributing budgets to who was President is folly. The last Bush budget had a measly $161B deficit heading to surplus again.

    In the real world we had a record tax revenue increase of 15%
    in 2007 and those paltry deficits.

    And BTW CBO is a good source for historical numbers and lousy at predicting. Instead of what they estimated, wrongly, deal with what ACTUALLY happened.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2024
  3. Shutcie

    Shutcie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2021
    Messages:
    5,325
    Likes Received:
    4,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "My model"??
    You missed the sarcasm again, didn't you?
     
  4. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    62,271
    Likes Received:
    19,701
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There maybe something that isn't effected by an increase in supply but it isn't oil.
     
  5. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    27,619
    Likes Received:
    9,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Over production during Trump's last two year's led to the highest number of well closures and bankruptcy of energy companies
     
    JonK22 likes this.
  6. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    27,619
    Likes Received:
    9,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well ISIS would never have formed and Iraq would not be now controlled by Iran
     
  7. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    62,271
    Likes Received:
    19,701
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And those that went broke were dependent on tertiary production wells.
     
  8. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    95,152
    Likes Received:
    15,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No ISIS.

    No Syrian Civil War.

    Hundreds of thousands of people not killed.

    Iran still with a strong enemy on their doorstep.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2024
  9. zalekbloom

    zalekbloom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2016
    Messages:
    5,037
    Likes Received:
    3,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OK, I understand you. If a debt was created during Democratic president, it was Democratic president fault, if a debt was created during Republican president, it was Democratic Congress fault, liquidity problems with TARP. The Great Recession of 2008-2009 had nothing to do with 2008 financial crisis (which happened after 8 years of Republican president).
    If you have a good job in Republicans party or you are a billionaire, your arguments make a lot of sense, but if not...
     
    JonK22 likes this.
  10. zalekbloom

    zalekbloom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2016
    Messages:
    5,037
    Likes Received:
    3,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Very funny argument for a people who don't know simple arithmetic:
    Lest assume we have 11 people, 10 people make $1000/year, each one pay 10% taxes, together they contribute $1000 for IRS.
    One person makes $100k/year pays 1% tax = $1000. He contributes 50% of tax revenues.
    And the question is - if there is a national debt, who needs to pay more taxes?
    Of course Democrats and Republicans have different answers and different explanations.

    Another question is who destroyed the savings and loan business?
    Some people would say The Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis of the 1980s, which led to the downfall of the industry, was primarily caused by a combination of deregulation, risky investment practices, fraud, and inadequate regulatory oversight, but Republicans will insist it was the result to soak the rich.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis

    If you have a good paid job in Republican party, I understand your arguments, but if not...
     
  11. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    62,271
    Likes Received:
    19,701
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First of math is not your friend only those making less than about 30k a year pay any where close to 1% in fact many of them get back more than they pay in due to tax credits.
    Assuming Saddam didn't nuke them or start another war somewhere else.
     
  12. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    84,512
    Likes Received:
    59,095
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How will Trump lower prices? By lowering energy costs.

    BURGMENTUM, BABY: Trump announces North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum as Department of Interior secretary.

    “He’s going to be announced tomorrow…I look forward to doing the formal announcement, although this is a pretty big announcement right now, actually,” Trump said during his speech at the Americans For Prosperity Gala at Mar-A-Lago in Florida on Thursday. “He’s going to head the Department of Interior and he’s going to be fantastic.”

    “We’re going to reduce regulation waste, fraud and inefficiency,” Trump said. “We’re going to clean out the corrupt, broken and failing bureaucracies. And we’re going to stop child sexual mutilation. We’re going to stop it because it’s time.”

    The Politico, sounding a bit nervous that energy prices might come down, adds:

    'If confirmed by the Senate, Burgum would manage the more than 500 million acres of federal land as well as the fossil fuels and minerals that lie beneath the surface — making him a critical component in Trump’s promise to boost oil and gas output.'

    'Heaven forfend.'

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    163,033
    Likes Received:
    42,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No you don't get it nor do you understand how the budget is created and authorized and since my arguments are based on historical fact they make perfect sense.

    You are assigning the 2009 $1,400B to President Bush and trying to hold him responsible. Why when he had nothing to do with it? You are ignoring the fact that TARP worked and solved the liquidity "crisis" and the US Treasury actually made money off of it and Obama didn't have to do anything about it. You ignoring the fact that the Dems took back the Congress January of 2007 and the recession didn't start until a year later and they refused any of Bush's proposals to try and offset it nor did they pass any of their own. You are ignoring that when Obama moved to the WH the recession was 2/3's over and we were heading towards a recovery but like Biden after COVID he just had to do SOMETHING to take credit so he passed his HUGE spending bill and sent the deficits to places never envisioned and put us on this road Biden and then put us into overdrive.
     
  14. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    163,033
    Likes Received:
    42,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No need for ISIS Al Qaeda would furthered it's own goals along with a host of other terrorist groups under his sponsorship with the goal of revenge against the west. He would have killed those hundreds of thousands as he further took over the ME and with the use of new WMD. Iran and Iraq would have reengaged adding to those killed and further upheaval.

    Don't take my word for it take the Democrats

    Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
    -- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    "No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
    --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
    -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
    -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

    "I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
    -- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
    -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "
    -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    -- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002

    "Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
    -- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    "My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
    -- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

    "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
    -- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002


    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
    -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    "I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
    -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
    -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
    -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

    "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
    -- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)

    I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
    -- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003
     
  15. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    163,033
    Likes Received:
    42,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ISIS wouldn't have formed because Al Qaeda would be operating under his protection DUH. And other terrorist groups would have also been operating under his protection. He would have ramped up his WMD programs, ISG said he would have restocked his arsenals in a matter of weeks, and willing to supply them to those groups to be used against the Western countries. And either Iran or Iraq would be controlling the other.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2024
  16. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    163,033
    Likes Received:
    42,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Those ten people in our current tax code are paying virtually nothing while the one person is paying 25%+...............try again.
     
  17. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    163,033
    Likes Received:
    42,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Why would it be better now to have a separate savings and loan business and bank business and investment business?

    That being asked, the government caused the S&L crisis starting back in the 1930's when the FDIC was first created and then through it's regulations and interference in the free market and then of course FREDDIE and FANNIE and forcing lenders to take on risky loans to risky borrowers which had to be bundled into hedge funds with good loans to cover the losses and which ultimately collapsed.
     
  18. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    27,619
    Likes Received:
    9,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow. You are clueless on the behaviour of Saddam. No terrorist groups would have formed in Iraq because they would have represented a threat to his presidency.
     
  19. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    95,152
    Likes Received:
    15,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Iraq had no WMD program when we invaded

    It was a hoax.

    ALL of the WMDs we found in Iraq were decades old and unusable.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2024
    JonK22 likes this.
  20. Shutcie

    Shutcie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2021
    Messages:
    5,325
    Likes Received:
    4,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A favorite exercise of partisans is to explain something as being the other side's fault. Budget deficits and the debt are favorite subjects for this exercise. It wasn't Obama's budgets that added $9 TRILLION to the debt, it was Bush's!

    Small problem with this exercise. A new president, with or without congressional support, has a lot of control over spending. They can delay, cut, and even stop spending with executive orders. They can cut many areas of spending and it takes significant congressional effort to overcome presidential acts.

    That doesn't often happen, at least in significant ways.

    So yeah, what happens on a president's watch belongs to that president.
     
  21. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    163,033
    Likes Received:
    42,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The last Bush budget was for fiscal year 2007 so show my how you add up the $9TRILLION.

    No they can't, remember Trump was impeached because the Dem said he did NOT spend money they had allocated. A President can send spending recessions to Congress, Reagan sent many, but Congress does not have to pass them, they didn't. The President is the least in control all hinging on the makeup of the Congress.

    You think so?

    "In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

    The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
    The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending

    "Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

    "He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."
    Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm

    So go and redo you math and stop assigning a budget which was not even passed until he left office to Bush, they didn't fly it down to TX so an ex-President could sign it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2024
  22. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    163,033
    Likes Received:
    42,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No ACTIVE program. It was all on hold and hidden from the inspectors. Why did ISG find barrels of highly concentrated organophosphates hidden in underground bunkers along with new artillery shells to fire gas attacks? Why did ISG report he had the means and the intention of restocking as soon as the sanctions were lifted and inspections ended and could have done so in a matter of weeks? Why did the Clinton administration in no uncertain terms warn the incoming Bush administration that Saddam WOULD rearm and WOULD always remain a threat as long as he was in power?

    Well DUH, first his weren't of the highest quality and storing them out in the desert is not the place to keep them ready to go but SO WHAT. It only takes a matter of weeks to produce more of them which he had every intention of doing.
     
  23. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    163,033
    Likes Received:
    42,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    WOW, You are clueless as to the behavior of Saddam as the Clinton administration and all the intelligence agencies and the ISG reported. He had full intentions of using them for his own devices and his Secret Service was creating methods they could have used to engage in WMD terrorist attacks from within western countries. He was already paying bounties to families of terrorist killed by our intelligence agencies.
     
  24. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    95,152
    Likes Received:
    15,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump can lower prices or he can impose worldwide tariffs. He cannot do both.
     
  25. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    13,880
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If he could have done it he would have last time. He didn’t because he can’t. He promises to cut energy costs by 1/2 by the end of the first year this time. It is bullshit just like when he said he was going to build the wall and make Mexico pay for it. Politicians lie to get votes. Both sides do this crap. Harris promised to reduce housing costs when they have been going up during her Vice Presidency. I don’t believe the honeyed words of either side anymore.

    Politicians. They feed us crap and keep us in the dark.
     

Share This Page