Elon Musk slams Biden: 'The real president is whoever controls the teleprompter

Life is Golden said:
I disagree. Their Executive experience in the private sector give them a superior edge on managing the largest budget in the world.
Click to expand...

That's not how it turns out, though. Speaking of spending endless streams of other people's money: consider the last two businessman presidents. George W. Bush inherited a nation with record budget surpluses, and left one with record budget deficits. Trump inherited an economy where deficits had fallen by over half in the preceding eight years (from $1.412 trillion FY 2009 to $0.665 trillion in FY 2017), and he presided over nearly a quintupling of deficits in just four years (to $3.132 trillion).

Too often, business people are used to having a never-ending stream of other people's money to spend. Bush, for example, got rich by being brought in on the purchase of the Texas Rangers. Bush put up about $106,000 of his own money, and another $500,000 of bank money, yet somehow came away with a 2% share of a team worth $87.2 million at the time. When you're used to daddy's friends handing you stuff basically for free, just to curry favor with the family, it develops some really sloppy money habits. It's the same with Trump, who spent decades woefully mismanaging his company, but with the understanding Fred Trump and his buddies would always be there to make sure things come out OK. Lots of business people are used to that kind of handout, so when it comes time to manage something the size of the US economy, where even those inherited fortunes and connections aren't enough to bail out incompetence, things tend to go pretty badly.

That's why you'll find that lists of the worst presidents in history are pretty heavy with businessmen. Most recent lists have the bottom of the pack include GW Bush, Hoover, Harding, Trump, Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson. Bush, Hoover, Harding, and Trump had been prominent businessmen before screwing up the country as president.
 
Elon Musk slams Biden: 'The real president is whoever controls the teleprompter?

Hold your taters' there! Perhaps it was intended as a slam on Biden- Perhaps it wasn't- but irregardless to that-

THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL IT COULD BE A SLAM ON BIDEN SPECIFICALLY- AS EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE THE TELEPROMPTER WAS INVENTED- USES OR USED TELEPROMPTERS.

And someone really really clever, may just ask Elon Musk- HOW COME HE USES TELEPROMPTERS? AND WHEN HE DOES, DOES THAT MEAN HE DOESN'T WRITE HIS OWN SPEECHES AS WELL?

SO BASICALLY THIS IS EITHER ONE STUPID THREAD OR A TOTAL THREAD FAIL! OR EVEN A BRAIN FART BY THE FART FACED ELON MUSK!

WHY ARE WE SEEING SO MANY TRUMPTARDED THREADS HERE ON JPP?

IS IT BECAUSE TRUMPTARDS ARE GETTING DESPERATE?

I THINK SO!

elon-musk-wants-teslas-to-be-able-to-fart-at-other-cars-coal-roll-revenge-150656_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mina said:
That's not how it turns out, though. Speaking of spending endless streams of other people's money: consider the last two businessman presidents. George W. Bush inherited a nation with record budget surpluses, and left one with record budget deficits. Trump inherited an economy where deficits had fallen by over half in the preceding eight years (from $1.412 trillion FY 2009 to $0.665 trillion in FY 2017), and he presided over nearly a quintupling of deficits in just four years (to $3.132 trillion).

Too often, business people are used to having a never-ending stream of other people's money to spend. Bush, for example, got rich by being brought in on the purchase of the Texas Rangers. Bush put up about $106,000 of his own money, and another $500,000 of bank money, yet somehow came away with a 2% share of a team worth $87.2 million at the time. When you're used to daddy's friends handing you stuff basically for free, just to curry favor with the family, it develops some really sloppy money habits. It's the same with Trump, who spent decades woefully mismanaging his company, but with the understanding Fred Trump and his buddies would always be there to make sure things come out OK. Lots of business people are used to that kind of handout, so when it comes time to manage something the size of the US economy, where even those inherited fortunes and connections aren't enough to bail out incompetence, things tend to go pretty badly.

That's why you'll find that lists of the worst presidents in history are pretty heavy with businessmen. Most recent lists have the bottom of the pack include GW Bush, Hoover, Harding, Trump, Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson. Bush, Hoover, Harding, and Trump had been prominent businessmen before screwing up the country as president.
Click to expand...

odd....the three that fucked up the country the most in the last sixty years were Carter, Obama and Biden.......unless you count peanut farming or the 10% share as a silent partner in Hunter's shenanigans there wasn't a lot of business experience involved....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
odd....the three that fucked up the country the most in the last sixty years were Carter, Obama and Biden.......
Click to expand...

Let's take an honest look at what those three each did:

(1) Biden: presided over the best year for economic growth in almost forty years, and a fifteen-month stretch when more jobs were created, by far, than in any such period in American history. He also presided over a long-overdue withdrawal from Afghanistan, a strong rebound in the US's reputation internationally, a decline in the budget deficit, and the passage of a huge infrastructure plan.

(2) Obama: you name the stat, and it probably took a turn for the better on his watch. Unemployment rates fell, median real income rose, real GDP per capita rose, violent crime rates fell, incarceration rates fell, stock values soared, home values soared, consumer debt levels fell, poverty rates fell, etc.

(3) Carter: his was a mixed bag, with very strong job creation and good economic growth, but poor median income growth and rising poverty. However, he did accomplish the Camp David Accords and set in motion the policies that ultimate beat inflation (after Nixon and Ford having just kicked the can down the road).

So, no, I definitely wouldn't say they fucked up the country the most in the last sixty years. Trump and Bush both inherited a prospering nation with a growing economy and left an absolute basket case. Nixon pioneered new heights of corruption, while also getting countless killed in Vietnam for years for nothing. Ford led us through a period of pretty much across-the-board worsening. Reagan ran up gigantic deficits with very little to show for it in terms of actually enhancing life for the American people (e.g., the poverty rate didn't come down at all on his watch, despite all that economic stimulus). If I were to rank the presidents over the past 60 years, Biden, Obama, and Carter would probably rank behind Clinton, LBJ, and maybe JFK, but certainly would look stronger than the Republicans. The only two I could think maybe I'd flip would be Carter and the first Bush, who had his strong points.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
deficit spending
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a great example. Obama left an economy where the deficit was less than half what he had inherited from Bush. That's part of a recent pattern, too. The deficit declined substantially in Biden's first year and massively under Clinton. Even Carter presided over a decline of the deficit in inflation-adjusted terms. LBJ's numbers look good, too -- he inherited a deficit, but by FY 1969, we were running a surplus. So, you've got to go all the way back to JFK to find a Democratic president who DIDN'T improve the budget balance. By comparison, Eisenhower is the only Republican president in modern times who DIDN'T run up bigger deficits.
 
ExpressLane said:
Thanks to Carter I had to pay 13.4% on my 2nd home.
Click to expand...

Well, Volcker hiked rates.... but, to be fair, Carter knew he would when he appointed him. The thing to remember, though, is we'd developed a serious inflation problem in the Nixon and Ford years, and the two of them just kicked the can down the road. Carter could have done the same and probably would have won a second term as president. But, instead, he took the political hit and did what he thought was needed to beat inflation -- and in doing so he set us up for decades of economic growth without inflation, after that.
 
Mina said:
Musk's in a tough spot. He made a big deal out of trying to buy Twitter, but didn't line up the financing first, and is now stuck with an agreement that will cost him a billion bucks if he backs out. He's trying to put conditions on his purchase, now, even though he didn't negotiate those conditions into the agreement he signed. That has left him desperate for a distraction. He knows that the kind of people who hang on his every word are Fox News drones, too, so he's feeding up some of the standard wing-nut criticisms of Biden, and hoping that'll secure him goodwill even as he looks for a way to slither out of the Twitter deal.
Click to expand...

It's hysterical how the RW despised Musk and his EV cars, but now they adore him because he might give the former-and-current Seditionist-in-Chief back his bully pulpit.
 
Mina said:
Yes, that's a great example. Obama left an economy where the deficit was less than half what he had inherited from Bush.
Click to expand...

Obama doubled the national debt........period......true.....his deficits after the Republicans took over the House were lower than when the House voted for everything he wanted......but he added more to the national debt than all the presidents before him combined......including Bush.......deal with it.....
 
Life is Golden said:
Tesla CEO Elon Musk, whose purchase of Twitter remains ongoing, slammed President Biden in a podcast interview Monday and warned that if the government continues printing money, inflation will get worse and the U.S. might follow the path of Venezuela

Musk, who said he has voted "overwhelmingly for Democrats," slammed the Democratic Party and Biden in particular. He suggested that Biden is something of an empty suit.
"The real president is whoever controls the teleprompter," the Tesla CEO said. "The path to power is the path to the teleprompter."

"I do feel like if somebody were to accidentally lean on the teleprompter, it's going to be like Anchorman," the CEO added, referencing the 2004 film in which Ron Burgundy reads whatever is written on the teleprompter, even if it would ruin his career.

"I mean, the obvious reason for inflation is that the government printed a zillion amount of more money than it had, obviously," Musk said, echoing Republican critics who claim that Biden's American Rescue Plan COVID-19 relief stimulus bill contributed to the near-40-year-high inflation the U.S. experienced in April.

"So it's like the government can't just, you know, issue checks far in excess of revenue without there being inflation, you know, velocity of money held constant," the Tesla CEO argued. "If the federal government writes checks, they never bounce. So that is effectively creation of more dollars. And if there are more dollars created, then the increase in the goods and services across the economy, then you have inflation, again, velocity of money held constant."

Musk insisted that "this is just very basic" and "not like, you know, super complicated."

"If the government could just issue massive amounts of money and deficits didn't matter, then, well, why don't we just make the deficit 100 times bigger? The answer is, you can't because it will basically turn the dollar into something that is worthless," he noted.
"Various countries have tried this experiment multiple times," Musk noted. "Have you seen Venezuela? Like the poor, poor people of Venezuela are, you know, have been just run roughshod by their government."

Venezuela's inflation reached a staggering 65,374.08% in 2018 amid an economic spiral beginning with government price controls and plummeting oil prices. The government started printing money to cope, and prices skyrocketed, unemployment increased, and GDP collapsed.

"So obviously you can't simply create money," Musk said. He emphasized "the true economy," by which he meant "the output of goods and services," as opposed to mere money.
U.S. inflation rose 8.3% in April, slightly below the 8.5% jump in March but still near the 40-year-high.

Musk addressed his purchase of Twitter, restating his belief in the need for an unbiased "public town square."

I think there's a need for a public town square, digital town square that where people can debate issues of all kinds, including the most substantive issues," he said. In order for that to work, the platform needs to be "as broadly inclusive as possible" and it needs to feel "balanced from a political standpoint," that is "not biased one way or the other."

"The reality is that Twitter, at this point, has a very far left bias," Musk said. "And I would trust myself as a moderate and neither Republican or Democrat."

Musk also lamented the decline of the state of California. He said the Golden State was once "the land of opportunity" but it has become the land of "taxes, overregulation, and litigation." He said, "There's got to be like a serious cleaning out of the pipes in California."

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/elon-musk-biden-real-president-teleprompter
Click to expand...

Nothing he said is wrong. The whole world KNOWS IT TOO,....some just choose to continue to lie about it and go down with the ship. AND THEY WILL go down,...no doubt about it. The next couple of years is going to be a political blood bath for the left. Their asses getting purged , ran from office on a rail!
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
It's hysterical how the RW despised Musk and his EV cars, but now they adore him because he might give the former-and-current Seditionist-in-Chief back his bully pulpit.
Click to expand...

Yep. They did something similar with the NFL, but in the opposite direction. When the focus was on CTE and on-the-field violence, and the left was concerned about that, the right-wingers liked the league, as a manly hold-out against overly soft liberal views, but when the NFL started tolerating protests against systemic racism and police brutality, then the right-wingers switched to despising them. They have a binary mentality, where something is either viewed as being in their camp, and thus perfectly wonderful, or in the other camp, and thus beneath contempt.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Obama doubled the national debt........period......true.....his deficits after the Republicans took over the House were lower than when the House voted for everything he wanted......but he added more to the national debt than all the presidents before him combined......including Bush.......deal with it.....
Click to expand...

Obama inherited a country that was addicted to massive budget deficits, and he weened the country off them fairly rapidly -- lowering us to less than half the deficit levels he inherited. We didn't go cold turkey, of course, so debt levels rose, since ANY deficit, no matter how small, will raise the debt. But when you are dealing with an addict, cold turkey can be dangerous.

As for the attempt to give the Republicans credit, the improvement started immediately. The last budget passed during the Bush era was for FY 2009, with a deficit of $1.412 Trillion. The last budget passed by Obama and a Democratic Congress was two years later, for FY 2011, with a deficit of $1.300 Trillion. That makes it very similar to the Clinton era, when right-wingers want to take credit for deficit reductions because a lot of it occurred with a Republican Congress, but there were already two years of improvement on the record before the Dems lost the Congress. In each case, the improvement spanned the entirety of the Democratic administration, regardless of which party held Congress. And it contrasts with the Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Trump eras, where there were soaring deficits regardless of how the party dynamics were playing out in Congress.
 
Mina said:
Yep. They did something similar with the NFL, but in the opposite direction. When the focus was on CTE and on-the-field violence, and the left was concerned about that, the right-wingers liked the league, as a manly hold-out against overly soft liberal views, but when the NFL started tolerating protests against systemic racism and police brutality, then the right-wingers switched to despising them. They have a binary mentality, where something is either viewed as being in their camp, and thus perfectly wonderful, or in the other camp, and thus beneath contempt.
Click to expand...

Binary mentality -- good phrase for black-and-white thinking. It shows their utter lack of principles and integrity, how they can switch the love off and on like a lamp, depending on whether the entity in question toes the mark, or not. They are really struggling with how Putin should be perceived. Their master tells them that Putin is a "genius." Yet even the dullest of them can see that Russia is failing horribly in Ukraine, as their losses mount along with the atrocities they are committing. What's a Devoted Deplorable supposed to think? lol
 
Mina said:
Obama inherited a country that was addicted to massive budget deficits, and he weened the country off them fairly rapidly .
Click to expand...

in general numbers, Bush doubled the national debt from $5T to $10T and Obama doubled it from $10T to $20T......even lib'ruls cannot pretend that is a decline.........

Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Trump eras, where there were soaring deficits regardless of how the party dynamics were playing out in Congress
Click to expand...

and yet you ignore the fact that Obama's deficits were equal to the combined total of these "soaring deficits" combined with the deficits of every other president since Washington............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top