Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Colt-fr3hd
You're gonna have to be more specific. Prove that he's an idiot? That he's one of the worst presidents? That most people didn't vote for him?
'Idiot' is subjective, but there is some evidence he's way in over his head.-
He said "I know more about ISIS than even the generals do!"
1 year later and he's assigned fucking Jared to create peace in the Middle East. He sent his son-in-law, a Jew, to negotiate peace in the Middle East. And before you pipe up that he's American first, you think the Iranians or Turks are going to believe that, or even give a shit? No understanding of foreign policy. Sounds like an idiot to me.
January 15 2017, Interview with WaPo:
"We’re going to have insurance for everybody,”
“There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.”
Feb 27 2017, White House meeting:
"Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
... No one knew?! That's the only thing obvious about it, that's been the crux of the issue for years!
It's too fragmented, bloated, and inefficient, and 45 thinks he can swoop in and pass a bill that makes no compromises and takes no time. Jesus Christ.
"One of the worst presidents"-
This one's subjective too, but making most of the Armed Forces hate you by forcing them to abandon the Kurds (the ones who actually beat ISIS, Jared be damned), leaving them to die at the hand of Turkey, is pretty impressive for a single term.
"Most" people didn't vote for him. Hilary won the popular vote (more people voted for her than Trump), but Trump won the electoral college. Again "most" is subjective, but Trump sure as hell didn't win a majority of American votes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wyattlong8321
That's simply not true.
Conservatives like to "debunk the myth" that FDR helped the economy, by citing the dip or Recession of 1937.
Unemployment spiked from 14.3% to 19%. What they forget to mention, is that FDR inherited an America with 24.9% unemployment.
Even ignoring the fact that government spending— which was central to the New Deal— propelled the U.S. economy by 1941, thanks to the war, FDR brought unemployment down by 6%, at his worst. That, in a single term, is incredible.
I know you don't like admitting it, but he did restore the American economy. America experienced an economic boom under him.
If a fiscally conservative President were elected, Keynesian economics wouldn't have rebuilt Europe, or made America into a superpower.
1
-
@wyattlong8321
Yes, it did. We still rely on the idea today, unless you want to tell me that Trump (and Obama, and Clinton, and Reagan, etc) actually reduced the budget ceiling? Or have you forgotten the word 'deficit'?
Our "greatest period of growth" is a subjective term. GDP was fully fleshed out in the 1930's, so we can't exactly measure "growth" in conventional terms before then. If you have a metric you're using, let me hear it.
That being said, I agree that America expanded massively during that century, but remember this:
-Lewis and Clark were sent out by the Government to chart for them.
-Most "Wild West" towns were sponsored by the Government. Their creation was to increase their Treasury size.
-The 1800's were primarily marked by the creation of the Transcontinental Railroad and the Erie Canal. both Gov't projects.
-When there was 'no regulation whatsoever,' a few robber barons were extremely wealthy, and the rest of America was dirt -poor. Remember tenements? Slums? Political machines? It wasn't called the Gilded Age for nothing. Without regulation, cities were filthy cesspools. People died of starvation, and worked for pennies.
-The Interstate Highway System was (obviously) Government funded and built. We wouldn't be anywhere near where we are today, without it.
About the rest of your comment: if it was geography, then economics had nothing to do with it either way, why mention it?
And yes, it did. What the fuck do you think the Marshall Plan was? A not- government funded handout to stimulate Europe? Do you think the "Free Market" just "swooped in" and made everything better? The Government spent trillions to help rebuild.
I know no one paid the 90% (btw) rate. The effective rate was still much higher than what we're paying for today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@happygilmore5948
I can't really comment on Idaho or Utah, because they're the fastest growing by percentage increase (indeed, 2.1% and 1.9%, respectively). But with their tiny populations, that "enormous" increase of ~2% is only ~40,000 people per year. That's peanuts in a country of 330M.
As for Texas, ever consider where most of the migration in Texas is occurring, specifically?
No prizes for guessing- it's Harris and Dallas counties. Travis' is especially impressive. They all exceed the Texas average.
So, what I said is still true.
People dislike boring, conservative places. They'd rather be in a bustling city, no matter which state that city happens to be in.
The only difference with Texas is, they're not dirty and homeless because (credit where it's due) they haven't regulated their housing market to hell.
Oh, and I could just as easily ask you why Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia have lost population, too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simongold2739
Lol, I'm not convinced that that's your pfp. You sound more like a middle-aged man from the South. Give it up Cletus, I know you're there in front of the screen! (username checks out lol)
Also, to entertain the gibberish you spouted:
You're wrong. China's bureaucracy is enormous, especially because they have over 3x as many people as the United States. Corruption is rampant there, too.
And even if it wasn't, your logic stops short of finding any real solution.
If the government were small, what would stop Amazon from taking over every industry and then pricing things however it wants? What would stop Martin Shkreli from bringing insulin prices to $800+ per pen? What would stop companies from knowingly lending to people that didn't make enough to pay off the interest rates they advertised, causing a housing crash of 2008?
Why are all conservatives so naive?
You understand perfectly well that people are inherently self-interested, but suddenly when a company is formed,
everyone is altruistic and prefers to spend its money to create new products, instead of taking the easy way and pocketing its income?
Give me a fucking break. Even Apple hoardes its money offshore.
Government needs to be bigger than companies. Otherwise, we'll slip back into the 1920's, with a few wealthy men working their employees to literal death and crushing any new business ventures because the government is too small to force them to stop.
P.S. I need a source for your claim that teacher's unions are the biggest contributors. As of 2018, it was the Chamber of Commerce with the largest dollar amount.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1