AP: Obama's nose is growing

[Angrboda]

The economy is doing well. Who deserves the credit?

At the risk of making ourselves unpopular with both sides, we’re going to say each has a point. The growing economy represents the acceleration of a trend that began in Mr. Obama’s first presidential term, when he was trying to pull the country out of an epic recession (with an assist from a bailout fund that President George W. Bush pushed through Congress in late 2008). The most controversial measure of his term, Obamacare, was said by the GOP to be a job killer, which it wasn’t, to put it mildly. The second-most controversial, roughly $763 billion in tax cuts and spending increases — “the stimulus” — probably added 2 percent to annual growth, according to a 2017 paper by Gerald A. Carlino of the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank.

Mr. Trump, therefore, inherited a tightening labor market, good for workers. However, it stands to reason that the massive new tax cuts and spending increases he signed into law reheated the already warmed-up economy. So give Mr. Trump that much credit.

If he and the Republicans can take responsibility for the benefits of his policies, however, they must also own the potential costs. Despite GOP promises that lower taxes would pay for themselves in higher growth, federal revenue has gone up only 1 percent so far this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office, not nearly enough to offset higher spending, especially for rising interest payments. The budget deficit is up $222 billion. Debt represents a long-term threat to growth; the costs of Mr. Trump’s deregulation, of which he also boasts, may ultimately be measured in the coin of decreased public health and safety. Trade wars, too, remain a risk factor.

The Federal Reserve’s policies probably deserve more credit for the recovery than politicians of either party. Yet Mr. Trump has recently bashed the Fed for raising rates, a challenge to the central bank’s independence, which, if the president pursues it, could turn into a historic mistake.

[LadyForCamus]

Asking you what your point is, was not snarky, which was my original reply to your thread.  I was snarky in reply to your whataboutism.

So whataboutism is bad...

It rarely leads to productive dialogue.  I think that comparing and contrasting the actions of two individuals who have held the same office is a worthwhile discussion, but refusing to talk about one  whilst pointing the finger at the other is not.  

You don’t think your position on the current POTUS is relevant in a discussion you started about the lies politicians tell?

Unless you guys do it. Then it's relevant!

Us guys?  I’m a person, thanks.  And, I’m not even sure what you mean here.

[Amarok]

OK, it's fair to post about a Republican's lies, but it's deflection to post about a Democrat.  

When you do it it's deflection

---

Do you objectively think that it's worse to call the media fake news than to actually use the law to intimidate them?

To bad that's not what happened

---

and there's a lot of hypocrisy on this forum.

Too bad you never show any and instead push a narrative

---

Yes, of course you know that, as Republican lies (whether actual or not) are exposed all the time here. Yet, you don't get snarky about those threads

Because the people who do the exposing are actual interested in exposing lies your just interested in deflection for Dumpf constant lying

---

Nope. It's fun to point it out occasionally and watch them take the bait and perform exactly as expected.

Fun to expose yourself as a Trump apologist yes yes it is i always have a laugh at your transparent politicking

Seems that this thread shows otherwise. Weren't many liberals expressing disapproval of those lies.

Primarily because the supposed exposer is an apologist hack

[Tiberius]

Obama's promoting medicare for all now. It would have been better if he pushed it while he still had the power to enact it. Instead we get the ACA, which didn't go far enough. I find it a bit dishonest to talk about it now, when he safely can't do much about it, but talking like he's on the right side of the issue now paints him in a better light for people who don't know he started with a super majority when he was in office. He could have gotten anything he wanted, but he buckled and went with something the republicans hated anyway.

Just an FYI, he was pushing for a version of medicare for all when he was President. It was called the public option. Joe Lieberman didn't support it, and his vote was require to avoid a filibuster. Ultimately it was dropped to get something passed.

The 60 votes Obama had in the Senate was flimsy thanks to right-leaning Dems and Lieberman, much how many decisions in our current Senate are based on the whim of Senators Collins and Murkowski for the Republicans.

[Amarok]

Why do you think lefties change the issue to the poster's motivation, rather than talking about the substance of the post, or at least ignoring it?

1. Because your motivations are to transparent they might as well be air and we will call you out on it 

2. Everyone has already debunked your bullshit

---

What do you think my intent is? 

Deflection 

What do you think is the intent of Minimouse and others who post articles critical of Trump nearly every day?

Exposing Trumps dishonesty

[John V]

It rarely leads to productive dialogue.  I think that comparing and contrasting the actions of two individuals who have held the same office is a worthwhile discussion, but refusing to talk about one  whilst pointing the finger at the other is not.  

Which is what my opponents have been doing.

Us guys?  I’m a person, thanks.  And, I’m not even sure what you mean here.

I mean, you say whataboutism is bad...but then say whatabout your views on Trump? in a thread on Obama.

[Amarok]

Which is what my opponents have been doing.

No that's what this whole thread is and we are throwing your bullshit right back at you

I mean, you say whataboutism is bad...but then say whatabout your views on Trump? in a thread on Obama.

Because it obvious that this whole thread is a giant whataboutism

[LadyForCamus]

It rarely leads to productive dialogue.  I think that comparing and contrasting the actions of two individuals who have held the same office is a worthwhile discussion, but refusing to talk about one  whilst pointing the finger at the other is not.  

Which is what my opponents have been doing.

Us guys?  I’m a person, thanks.  And, I’m not even sure what you mean here.

I mean, you say whataboutism is bad...but then say whatabout your views on Trump? in a thread on Obama.

I asked you what your views on Trump are. How is that a whataboutism?

[John V]

Call it a deflection if you prefer. 

[Amarok]

Call it a deflection if you prefer.  

No kindly don't compare your dishonesty bullshit with ladies honest inquiry

---

Repeat the whole point of Beta Fails thread 

His point translated 

"I'm angry at all the true criticisms of the loser i voted for. So i'm going to impotently lash out at Obama in some half baked attempt at creating a false equivalency. Then claim  everyone else is butt hurt for pointing out that's all i'm doing. All the while ignoring the countless lies and straight up delusional things  Trump says and writes on a daily basis and topping it off with whining Liberals are meanies for not being nice to an asshole like me while talking about how whiny Liberals supposedly are .