With the possibility of a recession who would you want in charge?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Bluesguy, Mar 16, 2020.

?

With the possibility of a recession who would you want in charge?

  1. The Republicans of the pre-2001 recession, DotCom bust and stockmarket collapse, 9/11

    75.0%
  2. The Democrats of the pre-2008 recession, Mortgage bust and stockmarket collapse

    25.0%
  1. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,815
    Likes Received:
    18,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well yeah Democrats tend to go on regulation binges and tax increases and anti-growth polices. Doing "more" is not in an of itself doing "better" it depends on what is that "more". The Democrats took a measly $161B deficit to a whopping $1,400B in just two years, Trump hasn't even come close. And all his attempts to foll back some of those huge spending increases have been met with resistance and as I recall you have not supported his proposed spending cuts. Congress controls the budget and spending.
    So again comparing the Democrat policies vis-a-vis the 2008 recession to the Republican policies vis-a-vis the 2001 recession who should we put in charge?
     
  2. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,743
    Likes Received:
    3,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The deficit already topped 1 trillion when Obama took office so most of that was under Bush. Unlike Obama, Trump inherited a good economy and completely squandered it. He blew up the deficit and pushed the FED to cut interest rates. Now we aren't ready for this thing. Revenue is likely going to fall dramatically and we are likely going to see a 2 trillion deficit in 2020. So Trump starts with a 500 billion deficit and ends with a 2 trillion deficit.
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  3. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    13,959
    Likes Received:
    8,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In this woke era possibly the US Army.
     
  4. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,815
    Likes Received:
    18,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Once again it is not a matter of who was President it is who controlled the Congress. And no the deficit had not reached the $1T. The last Republican deficit was $161B, then the Democrats took back the Congress. Bush was able to hold them to just a $400B deficit in 2008, the same peak as in the 2001 recession/recovery, but then the Democrats cut him out completely for 2009 and that budget, signed into law by President Obama with his spending included, went to $1,400B. And how exactly did Trump "squander" a good economy? He invented this virus and then went around coughing on people? Trump has proposed lower spending in every budget included cuts in specific departments. Democrats started with a $161B deficit and took it to $1,400B and kept it over $1,000B for the next three and it was REPUBLICAN sequester and austerity measures which brought it down to half that.

    So again why would you want to go back to Democrat economic policies? Vote more fiscal conservatives or the closed you can find to that and that is NOT going to be in the Democrat party.
     
    Bondo likes this.
  5. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    32,150
    Likes Received:
    9,033
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how getting a thousand bucks from the government help the businesses that the government has ordered shut down. Thousand or no, they are still shut down and will go bankrupt in time.
     
  6. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,597
    Likes Received:
    8,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I always go with the group trying least hardest to restrict firearms and self defense.
     
    Bondo likes this.
  7. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,815
    Likes Received:
    18,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think they find that many people use it just to pay down personal debt. I would consider sending it to my broker to buy and invest.
     
  8. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,743
    Likes Received:
    3,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually it does matter who the president is, because the democrats can have the majority in Congress, but if the president is Republican, nothing gets passed. The only way around it is to over-ride the veto, but no party has gotten enough of majority of that for many many decades. So its crucial the right president is in office.

    Another problem is that simply having a simple majority in the Senate only allowed you to pass budget-only bills and that limits what those bills can do. To be able to pass legislation beyond budget-only, you need 60 votes in the Senate. That is why the GOP healthcare bill was so limited.

    And even if the democrats do have control of congress and the presidency, they have to deal with a few moderate dems who are in GOP districts who will actually vote against them. Trump's healthcare bill didn't get passed because the Republicans, even with a majority in the congress, didn't have enough votes in the Senate, because a few moderate GOP members voted against them.

    So because of this, when a party gets into power, it will only pass very limited budget-only bills that moderates can get behind. But sometimes even that doesn't work. There are often more radical members of the party who will vote against compromise bills. The Republicans had issues with their far-right members opposing their healthcare bill because it did leave a lot of Obamacare in place. Its a miracle they got as far as they did.

    But lets say, you have the president, you have a strong majority in the house, and a 60 vote majority in the Senate, like Obama did in 2009. Well actually, most of the time the democrats had 58 or 59 votes due to special elections and only had 60 votes for a few months at a time. Additionally they had a few moderate members who voted against Obamacare. And a party will still have to deal with radical members who don't like the compromises. That is why the democrats took a lot of stuff out of Obamacare and passed it as a budget bill with a simple majority.

    So its not as simple as which party has the majority in Congress or the presidency, and both parties are responsible for coming together and doing what is right because you need both parties to get major things done most of the time.
     
  9. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,815
    Likes Received:
    18,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It matters most who controls Congress. If the President has a complimentary Congress then he certainly has more say in the budget. But the Budget and spending is controlled by Congress. Look how the Democrats just went after Trump for just DELAYING money Congress had allocated, they wanted him impeached. And the way to get around it is to negotiate. That is always how budgets have been formulated until recent times when the Democrats refuse to negotiate budgets or even pass one in their house.

    The Democrats passed their budgets 2008 - 2010, then with their spending and deficits out of control could not pass one and even Obama's proposals were DOA with their spending increases. It was the Republican sequester and austerity that cut those deficits but those spending levels are still ingrained.

    For instance the Trump attempts to roll back the the liberal work requirements for welfare that Obama initiated by EO, back to what the Republican congress had passed and people went back to work are are being upheld by a liberal court and the Dems are screaming about it.

    Go back to FY2008 with a Democrat Congress and a Republican President. The Republican President negotiate with the Democrats and they passed a budget with more spending than he wanted and less than they wanted. Of course the Dems then blame the entire deficit on Bush. And then FY2009 when the Dems cut Bush out completely so that a Democrat President could get their spending request included and shot the deficit to $1,400B and the Dems still blame Bush because "it was under him".

    So as I said

    Once again it is not a matter of who was President it is who controlled the Congress. And no the deficit had not reached the $1T. The last Republican deficit was $161B, then the Democrats took back the Congress. Bush was able to hold them to just a $400B deficit in 2008, the same peak as in the 2001 recession/recovery, but then the Democrats cut him out completely for 2009 and that budget, signed into law by President Obama with his spending included, went to $1,400B. And how exactly did Trump "squander" a good economy? He invented this virus and then went around coughing on people? Trump has proposed lower spending in every budget included cuts in specific departments. Democrats started with a $161B deficit and took it to $1,400B and kept it over $1,000B for the next three and it was REPUBLICAN sequester and austerity measures which brought it down to half that.

    So who should we put in charge of this upcoming financial crisis the economy will face and why?
     
  10. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,743
    Likes Received:
    3,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And as I showed before, controlling congress has limitations. If you have too many moderates or radicals, your control is greatly weakened. If you have less than 60 votes in the Senate, you can't get non-budget bills passed, without the support of the other party. At least with the presidency, you have solid control or you don't. The president has as much power as the Congress because nothing gets passed without his approval.

    You brought up the Democratic congress and Republicans president in 2008. As you pointed out the bill that was passed was a compromise between the Congress and the Presidency. Why did the democrats need to compromise? Because nothing happens without the president. The president is just as important as congress.

    Your example of the democrats failing to pass a budget in 2008 to 2010 proves my point. Even with the democrats controlling Congress and the presidency, they couldn't pass a budget, because they didn't have enough control to get it done. Its very difficult to get anything done with unified opposition from the minority party.

    The austerity and sequester was passed under Obama, but the Republicans didn't control Congress, and only had the house. Democrats had control of the Senate. This measure had bipartisan support and the support of Obama which is why it had a chance. But even this bill didn't cut spending very much and was a compromise bill. This is because you need the president to sign the bill to get anything passed, so you need to compromise with him. The house also can't pass anything without the support of democrats in the Senate too.

    Your example of Trump trying to roll back Obama's work requirements also proves my point. The Republicans had control of both congress and the presidency for two years but couldn't get something as simple as this done. You need bipartisan support.

    The democrats did attack Trump for not passing their budget proposal, but what you missed is that Trump approval didn't go down very much when he refused. The winner in these types of fights depends on who voters blame and whose side the take. Its not as simple as people always siding with Congress or the democrats, it depends on the situation. Additionally, the budget passed contained military spending increases the president wanted, and only maintained domestic spending, without the big increases the democrats wanted. In the Obama era, in budget disputes, the voters often sided with Obama over the GOP controlled congress, resulting in the GOP congress capitulating.

    You are right that it is very important who controls congress and nothing happens without congress. But you also need to president, and nothing happens without him. Both the Congress and the President have equal power and it matter who is in control of both. You also need to consider the level of control in Congress, not just who has a simple majority.
     
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,815
    Likes Received:
    18,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But Congress remains the driving factor with the Budget, the Presidents budget "suggestions" are routinely ignored and yes we need more fiscal conservatives in Congress. The only thing a President can do is a government shutdown and how well does that work? As I noted Bush and go back to Clinton negotiate and we got budgets passed. With Clinton he gave into a Republican Congress on the budget, on taxes and welfare reform after his political advisers warned him if he didn't he wouldn't be reelected. But it was Congress driving that and they balanced the budget.

    And 2008 yes the President negotiated with an opposition Congress, didn't get what he wanted and they got most of what they wanted. But again Congress drove that, Bush's budgets were DOA. And no they DID pass budgets those years but after that continuing resolutions because they could not come up with budgets to even negotiate.

    The Republicans forced the sequester on a dare from Obama and then as part of their negotiations in the Congress austerity cuts. Again CONGRESS. And Trump has proposed cuts every budget and is not getting them and especially with a Democrat house which has not submitted a budget. It's a balance between the three the House, the Senate and the President but Congress remains the driving factor and you must look at each year separately not just "Well so-and-so was President so it all falls on him".

    But you keep avoiding the points I make and questions I asked

    Once again it is not a matter of who was President it is who controlled the Congress. And no the deficit had not reached the $1T. The last Republican deficit was $161B, then the Democrats took back the Congress. Bush was able to hold them to just a $400B deficit in 2008, the same peak as in the 2001 recession/recovery, but then the Democrats cut him out completely for 2009 and that budget, signed into law by President Obama with his spending included, went to $1,400B. And how exactly did Trump "squander" a good economy? He invented this virus and then went around coughing on people? Trump has proposed lower spending in every budget included cuts in specific departments. Democrats started with a $161B deficit and took it to $1,400B and kept it over $1,000B for the next three and it was REPUBLICAN sequester and austerity measures which brought it down to half that.

    So who should we put in charge of this upcoming financial crisis the economy will face and why?
     
  12. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,743
    Likes Received:
    3,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the case of a government shutdown it isn't the president who always loses. If that was the case, then when the democrats controlled congress, and a republican is president, then the democrats could just pass anything they wanted. They could enact the green new deal, Medicare for all, tax hikes for the rich etc. If the president disagrees, then there is a government shutdown, and the president always loses the shutdown right? Wrong.

    In fact, whenever there is split control between the Congress and the presidency, very little usually happens, and Congress doesn't get its way just like the president doesn't. In the case of a government shutdown ,the spending eventually passed usually just keeps the government open and maintains the status quo. Government shutdowns almost never result in one side actually getting anything new they want. When the president disagrees with Congress, he can veto, and know that if there is a shutdown, the status quo will be maintained and Congress won't be able to pass anything new.

    So why does a government shutdown almost never result in anything new getting passed? Because when a shutdown happen, the winner is decided by two things. 1: Who has the most control of Congress and the presidency, and 2: What voters think. If one party has more of the power, it has more of the power to get budget bills passed. But the party needs solid control of Congress and the presidency. In cases when one party doesn't control Congress and the Presidency, the opinion of voters matters too. If there is a stalemate, the party that sees its approvals drop more is going to have more pressure to capitulate. If they keep holding out, they will suffer in the next election.

    So which party will see its approvals drop more? If the president refuses to pass something passed by congress, will the president's party get blamed by voters? Not necessarily. Voter are most likely to blame the party that is using the shutdown to get big partisan wishlists passed. For example, when the Republicans in Congress tried to include defunding Obamacare in their budget, the government shut down, and the Republicans were blamed. The democrats only wanted the status quo, rather than using the shutdown to get stuff passed. Voters will see this and blame the party that is using the shutdown like this.

    There are some exceptions to this. If a party is using the shutdown to get stuff passed, and the stuff they want passed is very popular, it is possible voters will side with them. Also, if the stuff isn't very much at all, then voters may blame the status quo side for holding up the entire government just to stop a couple billion dollars of spending.

    Even if one side manages to use a shutdown to get stuff passed, the result is usually a very big compromise. For example, Obama used a government shutdown to let the Bush tax cuts expire. But even in that case, he had to get most of the Bush tax cut become perminent for most people, and only the very richest saw their taxes increase to only a slightly higher level. It was a very small victory. This is because when there is a shutdown, the economy is hurting and everyone is becoming unpopular so there is a panic to get everyone to agree, but nobody wants to look like the loser. This is why usually the status quo is the result of government shutdowns.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2020
  13. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    32,150
    Likes Received:
    9,033
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well that just shows that it has nothing to do with any economic fundamentals.
     
  14. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,815
    Likes Received:
    18,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct it is who is the Republican as the compliant MSM piles on with the Democrats. There are plenty of historical cases where both sides worked together but those days are gone not because of Republicans but Democrats starting with Obama telling Paul Ryan that elections have consequences go sit in the back of the bus. Trump tried desperate to work with Pelosi and she just kept giving him the middle finger.

    But again

    it is not a matter of who was President it is who controlled the Congress. And no the deficit had not reached the $1T. The last Republican deficit was $161B, then the Democrats took back the Congress. Bush was able to hold them to just a $400B deficit in 2008, the same peak as in the 2001 recession/recovery, but then the Democrats cut him out completely for 2009 and that budget, signed into law by President Obama with his spending included, went to $1,400B. And how exactly did Trump "squander" a good economy? He invented this virus and then went around coughing on people? Trump has proposed lower spending in every budget included cuts in specific departments. Democrats started with a $161B deficit and took it to $1,400B and kept it over $1,000B for the next three and it was REPUBLICAN sequester and austerity measures which brought it down to half that.

    So who should we put in charge of this upcoming financial crisis the economy will face and why?
     
  15. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    27,134
    Likes Received:
    14,370
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmmm...

    So based on the results 8-3...

    ...is it safe to assume that the RW outnumbers the LW (at PF) by About 3 to 1?
     
  16. StarFox

    StarFox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2018
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    1,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Republicans had nothing to do with the internet bubble bust or 9-11 but had to deal with it.
    Democrats were directly responsible for the mortgage crisis, and didn't know how to deal with it.
    One party 'R" had to react to unforeseen problems, one party "D" ushered in those problems.

    Therein lies the difference. In a crisis, any crisis, I want Republicans in charge. They react calmly, not with panic.
     
  17. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,053
    Likes Received:
    2,324
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Neither. Let's create a new economic system in the U.S. which incorporates the best ideas from both capitalism & socialism, & combines them into a new working system that offers opportunity for investors to enrich themselves & takes care of workers too.
     
  18. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,815
    Likes Received:
    18,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We already had the best economic system which relies on the system that has created the most wealth and the highest standard of living. The question is who best to get us through THIS economic turmoil

    The Republicans of the pre-2001 recession, DotCom bust and stockmarket collapse, 9/11
    The Democrats of the pre-2008 recession, Mortgage bust and stockmarket collapse

    Which economic policies should we follow and why?
     
  19. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    20,222
    Likes Received:
    16,230
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pelosi, McConnell, Biden - have experience in dealing with economic downturns at a national level.

    Trump's experience in downturns has been to declare bankruptcy and cut-and-run from the problem. He should
    be replaced by Romney.
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  20. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,815
    Likes Received:
    18,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    With disastrous results with those policies.

    Compare that to the Republican Congress of 2001 and their policies and results.

    And Romney would use the Republican policies so is that you saying we should make sure we have a Republican Congress to use those policies?
     
  21. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    20,222
    Likes Received:
    16,230
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Disastrous results ..."? Funny, you must have been living in Venezuela. We had positive economic numbers for seven straight years. Not going to claim they were great numbers, but they were a long way from "disastrous". Disastrous is what's going on right now under Trump.

    Nope. We should never have elected a Game Show Host as President. Romney or Jeb Bush would have been far better choices.
     
  22. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,815
    Likes Received:
    18,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The disastrous results were NOT funny unemployment shot to 10% and stayed over 8% for four years while the LFPR collapsed and incomes fell and the worst recovery in modern history. Why would you want a repeat of that only worse? It's not about who is President it's about how controls the Congress and legislation. As we see now it is the Democrats who are obstructing this trying to make sure we are all on government dependence when we get through this and the Kennedy Center and Planned Parenthood get funding and more regulations on the airlines and business similar to their previous response to financial difficulties.

    Compare that to Republican policies 2000 and through the 2001 slowdown/recession/dot.com stockmarket collapse/911.
     
  23. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    21,695
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    This isn't a recession from an economy with some bubble being popped. It's from something noneconomic interacting with the economy. In this case it's not about the economy, but faith in the leader to see us through it. The better question is to ask which side will give you hope? Bush could do that. He conciliated the nation after 9/11, regardless of one's feelings on his policies. Obama could do that too. Now we have to look at our current iteration. Which side gives you hope? This is where the scary part comes in, I'm willing to bet most people will say neither. If you can't trust your leader to see you through this, why should you accept them as a leader in times of crisis?
     
  24. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    106,815
    Likes Received:
    18,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Hmmmm Trump was giving us hope the other day and the MSM attacked him for it. This WILL be about the economy and how we get it going again and how fast we can recover. So you want a Republican recovery ala 2001 or a Democrat ala 2009?
     
  25. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,400
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Expained here (from another thread): how the government can rescue the economy without going into debt...…..

    (being my reply to Giftedone, who claimed I am promoting the old "money growing on trees" myth).

    ……….
    So let's explore this question in detail (since what's obvious to me is apparently not obvious to you).

    MMT proposition: A sovereign government (with consolidated treasury and central bank, aka the public sector) has a sovereign - and exclusive - currency-issuing capacity (for the specific currency of the given nation).

    Note: citizens (aka the private sector) are users of the currency; unlike the government, they must indeed earn, beg, steal, or borrow the currency, to engage in the nation's economic life.

    I think we both agree on that.

    Now it is apparent that, in your mind, this currency-issuing capacity, if employed by government, is equivalent to "money growing on trees".

    But you are wrong.

    One way to understand this is to consider the role of money in an economy; but let's first consider an economy operating without money at all:

    wealth = resources + knowhow + labour.


    Note: no mention of money, in that identity at all. So how necessary is money?

    In fact, it would be theoretically possible to run an entirely centrally-planned economy (with complete access to details about all the citizens) with an entirely centrally planned and organised production and distribution system, without resort to money at all. [Refer again to the above identity].

    However, in a monetary system (without central planning of production and distribution) a central bank might deposit, via treasury and central bank, money created ex nihilo, into citizens' bank accounts without causing inflation provided the resources exist on which to spend the money.

    Perhaps the current situation in which governments are being forced to rescue their economies - while economies are forced into 'hibernation' - will make the point clear.

    It's possible governments around the world will soon be in 'debt' to the tune of, say, $60 trillion or more in total (given the US alone has just passed a $3 trillion rescue package). This burden would severely hamper future growth prospects....and Bill Gates has said we should expect more pandemics in the future...so governments could end up entirely spending all their tax income on interest repayments to bond holders. .

    The point is economies have been forced onto life support while people, other than those in employed in essential industries required to maintain life, have been told to stay at home.

    Now obviously, the government can use its currency issuing capacity at this time to pay for the essential costs of workers who have lost their jobs (and wages), because there is a massive under-utilisation of the nation's productive capacity and resources at this time, so inflation will not be an issue.

    btw, Trump obviously has his eye on the growing massive debt load...….and so is thinking of completely re-opening the US economy in time for Easter Sunday services - praise the Lord! But did he not learn from the congregation-related, corona-virus catastrophe in S. Korea? Imagine that; he might be about to set the US on a similar catastrophic course, when in fact he can direct the treasury to simply issue the necessary money, without adding one cent to the US debt.

    In short, in such a time as this, money can "be grown on trees"...…(counter-intuitively.....)

    And even in normal circumstances, MMT shows there is nearly always some slack in a market economy, which can be utilised via the government's currency issuing capacity to maintain REAL full employment (not the micky mouse 3.5% figure bandied about in the official figures: U6 + those no longer registered as seeking work is actually > 10%, ie recession level).

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/mmt-overcoming-the-political-divide.569365/

    Conclusion: given certain conditions - 'money CAN "grow on trees".....


    To your specific question: businesses, as well as employees, can be supported by government eg, government can support businesses as required to maintain their employees on their books, so that they can quickly resume trading when the pandemic passes.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2020

Share This Page