Trump's Iran "Deal"

[Idolater]

Well, sure you would have, but I don't recall any other administration having vanity merchandise stores like this for gullible patrons to waste their dollars on junk, or gas prices being at an all time high, inflation rates through the roof, depleted oil reserves thanks to a war that was apparently won in March and is yet still going on escalating consumer prices as a result etc etc.

Are you happy with the state of this ongoing war?

It's extremely important to engage Iran militarily rn. We didn't get into this because we're bored. We got into this because it's extremely important to engage Iran militarily rn.

You get your information from late night television talking points. Or from the internet. Or from some left-slanting rag "newspaper."

Inflation rates are not through the roof, they are so low that they're nearly low enough to start lowering the price of money. Not quite, but it's almost that low.

If someone wants to buy a MAGA hat, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

etc., etc.

 

[annabenedetti]

It's extremely important to engage Iran militarily rn. We didn't get into this because we're bored. We got into this because it's extremely important to engage Iran militarily rn.

Why?

You get your information from late night television talking points. Or from the internet. Or from some left-slanting rag "newspaper."

Wait, what? I'll let Arthur answer for himself (even though I have a good guess what he'll say) but you included "the internet" in there.

Does that mean you don't get information from the internet?

Inflation rates are not through the roof, they are so low that they're nearly low enough to start lowering the price of money. Not quite, but it's almost that low.

They're not that low.

Source: NYT

If someone wants to buy a MAGA hat, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

It's not whether someone should or shouldn't be allowed to.

It's whether the West Wing should be hawking Trump merch.

(NOT the White House gift shop, Trump's personal merch stand - with Trump 2028 hats, no less.)

 

[commonsense]

Inflation rates are not through the roof, they are so low that they're nearly low enough to start lowering the price of money. Not quite, but it's almost that low.

The next move will be an increase in rates.

Incidentally, congrats is in order today as US national debt surpasses 40 trillion!

 

[Right Divider]

Has any other president referred to fallen soldiers as "suckers" or "losers"?

Ah, the same old fake news.

You need to stop getting your information from bogus sources.

 

[Idolater]

The next move will be an increase in rates.

Maybe, but see above, where @annabenedetti (Anna Brain-a-Deady) gives us a chart of inflation the last three years to rebut me. Expand the chart, out to, say, our lifetimes. What's it look like now? It looks just like how I describe inflation, which is the near polar opposite to what @Arthur Brain (Arthur Brain-a-Deady; Anna's brother) claimed. Even if we do next raise the price of money, it will still be a very low historic price for money, again, expand the chart of the interest rate the Federal Reserve controls out to our lifetimes. Interest rates are quite low historically, even though they're not as low as they were within the past 10 years. That's OK. All variables vary.

Incidentally, congrats is in order today as US national debt surpasses 40 trillion!

Don't forget the implied obligations that don't qualify as national debt. We owe future payments too, based on our social welfare system, that aren't counted in the 40 trillion which is an auditable quantity of money. The future obligations aren't auditable but we know they're higher than zero, and that should get counted somewhere when we're perturbed about the national debt (which incidentally constitutes something like a national leverage rate of no more than 33%, probably closer to 25%, but could we really say it's not 20%? which isn't bad at all; for example, homeowners are somewhat leveraged in their home ownership, by their mortgage; at first it's 80% leveraged or more, and then it lowers over decades until you pay off the mortgage and you're leveraged 0%; we are leveraged as a country at something like 20-33%; it isn't a disaster or crisis, and it wouldn't be even if we were leveraged 80% and more, as plenty of young first-time homeowners show us over time), because it is real, it's a bill that's going to come due, and we're going to have to pay it.

 

[Idolater]

Why?

Just as in previous military operations we can't know all that our politicians and civilian government workers know, we're left reading tea leaves. I'm saying, sure you could read the leaves in the cynical way, but also, and just as justifiably, you could read them in a less skeptical way.

It's not as if every president before President Trump hasn't talked a big game re Iran. We've all seen the quotes, about Presidents Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, all warning us and Iran about nuclear guns. It's an invariant theme of White House administrations since the 1990s.

So who's to say that Iran didn't trip some red line, clandestinely, a red line that prior administrations carefully installed? We don't know. Who's to say that there isn't some prevailing view between the Oval Office and the Pentagon, re keeping Americans and American friends safe, alive, and with a potential to succeed and thrive, by actively averting military conflict brought on by Iran (or some other known bad actor on the global stage)? And I mean, in a globally disruptive way? Meaning, there are military engagements required on a far smaller scale, like a regional war, like the one we're in rn, in order to prevent any true, World War type global conflict, from ever occurring again.

We don't know. We don't know enough to say Yes or No to that prospect.

We could definitely, we have justification to, just accuse the president of sadism. But we don't have the certainty that a trial by jury might give us, in contrast. We could accuse him, we could bring charges, but we couldn't convict him, which means if we go ahead and condemn him, we are breaking one of our norms of our sense of justice as Americans (and as Catholics), that men are innocent until proven guilty in a court of justice.

We don't know enough to convict the president of sadism.

We also don't know enough to convict him of imbecility. And for the same reasons.

We also don't know enough to convict him of corruption (viz. by Israel), which is another charge leveled against him in this Iran conflict.

And we don't know if it's for some good reason either. I'm saying the good reason is a live option. It's just as justifiable as believing it's due to sadism, imbecility, or corruption.

Wait, what? I'll let Arthur answer for himself (even though I have a good guess what he'll say) but you included "the internet" in there.

Does that mean you don't get information from the internet?

I'm sure readers of the thread will note (NB) that you personally have criticized other interlocutors here of getting their information from the internet, in exactly that same wording. Point made.

They're not that low.

They are. You have to expand that chart you offer as proof to rebut me. Expand it out to our lifetimes; that will be relevant context. The chart you gave is making a narrow point which addresses the president's election promises, not the inflation rate in historical context, which is what @Arthur Brain was talking about.

Source: NYT



It's not whether someone should or shouldn't be allowed to.

It's whether the West Wing should be hawking Trump merch.

(NOT the White House gift shop, Trump's personal merch stand - with Trump 2028 hats, no less.)

Understood. It's a Constitutional question, for sure; I agree. And I understand you think it's a character flaw of his, his instinct to exploit a unique situation (in this case, being POTUS) for profit. You know he's not breaking any laws in doing this, as tacky as it might appear to you to be. I can't agree with you that it's objectively tacky though. It could be pioneering. The next Barrack Obama might do the same thing, and then, you and Arthur and @commonsense definitely will not have as big a problem with it, I can guarantee it. You'll go from castigating and excoriating President Trump, to looking the other way when Obama II is in office—you'll probably even go buy Obama II's merch and gleefully revel in it—forgetting conveniently this time rn, when you judge Trump as a fiend for starting a trend that you'll wind up greatly enjoying in the future.

It's not what Trump's doing, it's that he's Trump, that you (and all the viscerally anti-Trump) don't like.

Do you hold it against the memory of MLK Jr. that he had a habit of violating the Sixth Commandment? Does it sully his legacy? I mean yeah, it does. Does it detract from what he legitimately accomplished? It shouldn't. Just as with President Clinton, you can't hold against him his (grave) moral failings and limitations, when evaluating his work, if those things do not clash, and in the case of MLK, Clinton, and Trump, I don't think they do clash.

 

[Idolater]

... our social welfare system

Interesting that we don't hear so much anymore about the disparity between the American social welfare system and European and Anglosphere social welfare systems anymore. That used to be a big talking point in the discourse but I haven't heard that one in many years now. It's a dead issue. That's interesting.

... a national leverage rate of no more than 33%, probably closer to 25%, but could we really say it's not 20%? which isn't bad at all; for example, homeowners are somewhat leveraged in their home ownership, by their mortgage; at first it's 80% leveraged or more, and then it lowers over decades until you pay off the mortgage and you're leveraged 0%; we are leveraged as a country at something like 20-33%; it isn't a disaster or crisis, and it wouldn't be even if we were leveraged 80% and more, as plenty of young first-time homeowners show us over time

This is simply based on the Federal Reserve's estimate, which is public, of the combined gross wealth of American citizens, and comparing that to the public debt. The last estimate I saw was 160 trillion dollars combined assets basically, for Americans. 40 out of 160 is 25% leverage. Meaning to say, you take out a loan (debt), and there is collateral (in the case of a homeowner this is the home itself; it's called a "secured" loan when it's collateralized), and if we just take the national public debt as imposed on Americans generally, then that loan is secured by the assets Americans are taking out the loan against.

... it's a bill that's going to come due, and we're going to have to pay it.

... or, we elect to not pay it. We could revise the terms of our social welfare system to reduce or eliminate the future obligations. This sounds bad but it's a drop in the bucket compared to opting to not pay our formal obligations (debts). That latter would be catastrophic, while the former would only be a mild disruption, nationally, somewhat internationally, but mainly nationally.

imo.