Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Trump may be all manner of stupid. He may even be a corrupt businessman, but the one thing he isn't is a traitor to the USA, like Hillary is.- SIGNY

And you have evidence of that right? Evidence of Hillary commiting an act of treason. Let's see it.- THUGR

---

Anyone advocating that America give over its sovereign right of creating and drafting its own laws through the democratic process ... laws regarding the environment, health, wages, finance, immigration, the economy etc ... to foreign powers is a traitor.

I can't think of a clearer description of traitorous behavior than that.

Hillary is a traitor.

---

There you have it folks. Once again we get to witness sig the hypocrite. Thread after thread we see her post there is no evidence to show Trump or his associates conspired with the Russians. She posts these denials even though aid after aid of Trumps, cabinet member after cabinet member, family member after family member and appointee after appointee of his has been caught lying about their Russian connections.

Then she has the tenacity to post this shit as though it is evidence of Hillary's treasonous behavior.

Sig your as sick as they come. And quite frankly, so are all those who don't call her on it. Show me the evidence!!


T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You'd have to revamp the tax structure because it's far too easy for corporations and transnational elites to declare their profits in tax havens, or hide their wealth in "instant" subsidiaries and foundations

---

Here you are proving my point. Tax "Havens" is merely LibtardSpeak for a situation where a LOWER Tax Rate is where any reasonable and rational person would willingly pay their fair share of Taxes, instead of the option of paying obtrusively excessive high confiscatory Tax Rates outside of the "Tax Haven" environment.
So, Lower Tax Rate results in Higher Tax Revenue for the Taxing Authority, and Higher Tax Rate results in Lower Tax Revenue. Or, more precisely, LOSS of Tax Revenue.
Pretty logical.

Quote:

---

If it were me, I'd simply drop the tax rate but also eliminate specialized deductions, exemptions, expenses, depreciations, subsidies, etc.

---

Is this another endorsement of Consumption Tax? Reason may be dawning.

Quote:

---

OH BTW- JSF- that concept that lower rates increvase tax revenues has been disproved over and over and over again. That is a misapplication of a concept called the aptly-named "Laffer Curve". Every tax-cutting Republican President - including Reagan- sang that song, and every one of them was proved wrong, as demonstrated by the history of actual government revenues versus tax rates.

Before you forward an idea like this, it would be useful to look up actual numbers to see if it's been validated by reality.

---

The Koolaid is strong with this one.
Please provide a valid example of this: identify one time when LOWERING the Federal Tax RATE resulted in LESS Federal Tax Revenues.

I guess "Reaganomics Denier" is a thing now, another version of Libtard Surreality.

---

Quote:

---

"US Rejects China's Bid For "Market Economy" Status

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Trump is consistent in trying to bring manufacturing back from China:

Quote:

---

"US Rejects China's Bid For "Market Economy" Status

---

More later

---

You're posting Trumps lies. He is getting his clocked cleaned by the Chinese.


T

Quote:

---

You're posting Trumps lies. He is getting his clocked cleaned by the Chinese.

---

Quote:

---

US seeks to deny China market economy status in WTO

https://www.ft.com/content/f7941646-d571-11e7-8c9a-d9c0a5c8d5c9

The Trump administration has opposed China’s bid for recognition as a “market economy” in the World Trade Organization, citing decades of legal precedent and what it sees as signs the country is moving in the opposite direction under Xi Jinping.

The US opposition to China’s efforts to be recognised as a market economy in the WTO came in a legal submission due to be released on Thursday in a case brought by Beijing against the EU.

Market economy status would make it more difficult for the US to defend its anti-dumping rulings against Chinese companies at the WTO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

You're posting Trumps lies. He is getting his clocked cleaned by the Chinese.

---

Better than diving headfirst into the TTP and TTIP.

---

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, now generally known as TTIP, is a deal to cut tariffs and regulatory barriers to trade between the US and member states of the EU. It began with the P4 trade agreement between just four nations - Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore - that came into effect in 2006. That deal removed tariffs on most goods traded between the countries, promised to cut more and also to co-operate on wider issues such as employment practices, intellectual property and competition policies.

The TPP represents 40% of the worlds economy and we don't have a seat at the table due to your kind of populist message. Yeah sig, real smart. Twelve countries that border the Pacific Ocean signed up to the TPP in February 2016 representing roughly 40% of the world's economic output.

The pact aimed to deepen economic ties between these nations, slashing tariffs and fostering trade to boost growth. Members had also hoped to foster a closer relationship on economic policies and regulation.

The agreement was designed so that it could eventually create a new single market, something like that of the EU.

Barack Obama treated trade deals as a priority during his tenure, and this particular deal would have bolstered America's position in the Asia-Pacific region, where China is growing in influence. Now China is free to run the table.

The 12 countries involved have a collective population of about 800 million - almost double that of the European Union's single market. The 12-nation would-be bloc is already responsible for 40% of world trade.

The deal was seen as a remarkable achievement given the very different approaches and standards within the member countries, including environmental protection, workers' rights and regulatory coherence - not to mention the special protections that some countries have for certain industries. All issues you claim to be for as you bitch your way around these threads with your populist protectionism message.

T

Quote:

---

You're posting Trumps lies. He is getting his clocked cleaned by the Chinese. - THUGR

Better than diving headfirst into the TTP and TTIP.- SIGNY

---

Quote:

---

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, now generally known as TTIP, is a deal to cut tariffs and regulatory barriers to trade between the US and member states of the EU. It began with the P4 trade agreement between just four nations - Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore

---

Quote:

---

that came into effect in 2006. That deal removed tariffs on most goods traded between the countries promised to cut more

---

Quote:

---

... and also to co-operate on wider issues such as employment practices, intellectual property and competition policies.

---

Quote:

---

The TPP represents 40% of the worlds economy and we don't have a seat at the table due to your kind of populist message.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah sig, real smart. Twelve countries that border the Pacific Ocean signed up to the TPP in February 2016 representing roughly 40% of the world's economic output.

---

Quote:

---

The agreement was designed so that it could eventually create a new single market, something like that of the EU.

---

Quote:

---

Barack Obama treated trade deals as a priority during his tenure, and this particular deal would have bolstered America's position in the Asia-Pacific region, where China is growing in influence. Now China is free to run the table.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, now generally known as TTIP, is a deal to cut tariffs and regulatory barriers to trade between the US and member states of the EU. It began with the P4 trade agreement between just four nations - Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore

---

I think this was a bad cut-paste job. The TTIP is the Atlantic version, but the nations referenced ... Brunei, Chile, NZ, and Singapore - are all in the Pacific. So you lopped off the wrong part of the article and used the wrong intro. Be that as it may ...

---

Ok, rather than get into a protracted debate, I will address this issue and show when it comes to reading comprehension, you certainly are lacking. What I said was that the TTIP began with what was called The P4. The Pacific four. And I quote myself

"The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, now generally known as TTIP, is a deal to cut tariffs and regulatory barriers to trade between the US and member states of the EU. It began with the P4 trade agreement between just four nations - Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore - that came into effect in 2006. That deal removed tariffs on most goods traded between the countries, promised to cut more and also to co-operate on wider issues such as employment practices, intellectual property and competition policies."

Now, this was the first free trade agreement linking Asia, the Pacific and the Americas. The agreement is between Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Singapore, and New Zealand as I said. The P4 is New Zealand's first and only trade agreement with a Latin American country.

I included this in my initial post to show how one trade agreement lead to more cooperation between nations. And to make a larger point. Which is that Trump and idiots like you who don't understand how important these agreements are, are jut that, idiots and bad for America.


T

Quote:

---

I included this in my initial post to ... make a larger point. Which is that Trump and idiots like you who don't understand how important these agreements are, are jut that, idiots and bad for America. - THUGR

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

I included this in my initial post to ... make a larger point. Which is that Trump and idiots like you who don't understand how important these agreements are, are jut that, idiots and bad for America. - THUGR

---

But you haven't made that point. You haven't answered a single substantive question about these kinds of trade agreements. All you've managed to do is throw out phrases like "seat at the table" which sound weighty, but haven't discussed what these treaties do to, or for, the signatories.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You'd have to revamp the tax structure because it's far too easy for corporations and transnational elites to declare their profits in tax havens, or hide their wealth in "instant" subsidiaries and foundations

---

Here you are proving my point. Tax "Havens" is merely LibtardSpeak for a situation where a LOWER Tax Rate is where any reasonable and rational person would willingly pay their fair share of Taxes, instead of the option of paying obtrusively excessive high confiscatory Tax Rates outside of the "Tax Haven" environment.
So, Lower Tax Rate results in Higher Tax Revenue for the Taxing Authority, and Higher Tax Rate results in Lower Tax Revenue. Or, more precisely, LOSS of Tax Revenue.
Pretty logical.

Quote:

---

If it were me, I'd simply drop the tax rate but also eliminate specialized deductions, exemptions, expenses, depreciations, subsidies, etc.

---

Is this another endorsement of Consumption Tax? Reason may be dawning.

Quote:

---

OH BTW- JSF- that concept that lower rates increvase tax revenues has been disproved over and over and over again. That is a misapplication of a concept called the aptly-named "Laffer Curve". Every tax-cutting Republican President - including Reagan- sang that song, and every one of them was proved wrong, as demonstrated by the history of actual government revenues versus tax rates.

Before you forward an idea like this, it would be useful to look up actual numbers to see if it's been validated by reality.

---

The Koolaid is strong with this one.
Please provide a valid example of this: identify one time when LOWERING the Federal Tax RATE resulted in LESS Federal Tax Revenues.

I guess "Reaganomics Denier" is a thing now, another version of Libtard Surreality.

---

Is this the sound of crickets?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Trump is consistent in trying to bring manufacturing back from China:

Quote:

---

"US Rejects China's Bid For "Market Economy" Status

---

More later

---

You're posting Trumps lies. He is getting his clocked cleaned by the Chinese.


T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I understand that under Trump, black unemployment has fallen to the lowest level in 17 years.

I am shocked, just shocked I say, that I have not heard the MSM uncover this fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I understand that under Trump, black unemployment has fallen to the lowest level in 17 years.

I am shocked, just shocked I say, that I have not heard the MSM uncover this fact.

---

Also, black homeownership is now at the highest level, ever.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I understand that under Trump, black unemployment has fallen to the lowest level in 17 years.

I am shocked, just shocked I say, that I have not heard the MSM uncover this fact.

---

Also, black homeownership is now at the highest level, ever.

---

Unemployment rate down to lowest level since 2000.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I understand that under Trump, black unemployment has fallen to the lowest level in 17 years.

I am shocked, just shocked I say, that I have not heard the MSM uncover this fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Got to be a hangover from the Obama Administration and the programs he created during his 8 years of socio-economic advancement.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What the hell is wrong with you people?

JSF: The "unemployment rate" is a bogus figure; it includes people who work as little as one hour a month as "employed". That means a lot of baristas, McEmployees, Walmart greeters, and Uber drivers are counted as "employed". I'm sure that Trump wants (for political reasons) to take credit for the stock market bubble (floating on sea of zero-interest loans) and meaningless "unemployment" data, but even TRUMP knows that the only meaningful data is industrial production and manufacturing. Don't go boosting these meaningless measures of "growth"; they will evaporate like frost in the sunshine.

SGG: You're completely incomprehensible. Trump is not the one extending auto loans and mortgages and student loans to "subprime" borrowers; it's the banks. And just like before, THESE loans will evaporate like frost in the sunshine. So put down the bottle, and try again.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Got to be a hangover from the Obama Administration and the programs he created during his 8 years of socio-economic advancement.

---

The what?

8 years of Obama was terrible for both the economy and for social issues. His administration is probably the number one reason that Trump is in there in the first place.

What are you even talking about?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Got to be a hangover from the Obama Administration and the programs he created during his 8 years of socio-economic advancement.

---

The what?

8 years of Obama was terrible for both the economy and for social issues. His administration is probably the number one reason that Trump is in there in the first place.

What are you even talking about?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

So put down the bottle, and try again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Trump is taking credit for something he had nothing to do with.

---

Quote:

---

I didn't say he was. In fact, I'd be surprised if somebody could actually dig up a quote where I ever said that he was.

---

Quote:

---

No. He didn't. Because the economy isn't any better since 2008-2009.

---

Quote:

---

The recession
When did it end?
A question of not just academic interest
Apr 15th 2010 | Washington, dc

THE American recession is over. In the summer of 2009 real GDP and industrial production hit bottom and resumed growth, and expansion in both measures strengthened as the year ended. Industrial production has continued to grow in early 2010 as, in all likelihood, has output. By the end of the current quarter the American economy may have returned to its pre-recession peak in real GDP.
Most economists agree about all of this. Prominent voices like Northwestern University's Robert Gordon, Harvard's Jeffrey Frankel, and Stanford's Robert Hall have declared the recession dead and gone. But those men all sit on the National Bureau of Economic Research's recession-dating committee, responsible for pinpointing the beginning and end of business cycles. On April 12th that committee announced that it was not able to set an official end-date for the American recession.

That a date has not yet been chosen is not that unusual; the committee has taken longer to decide in past recessions. The choice to delay a conclusive statement may have been an act of caution, to avoid a black eye in the event that the economy contracts again before reaching its previous peak.

But the suggestion that the economic pain is not yet definitively over struck a discordant note amid cheerier headlines. Earlier in the month this paper expressed the hope that a needed transition in the American economy had begun, and others have gone further. The New York Times and Washington Post have both featured business columnists arguing that Americans are too pessimistic about the strength of the economy. BusinessWeek praised the success of Obamanomics on its cover. Newsweek's cover announced, “America's Back! The Remarkable Tale of Our Economic Turnaround”.

Some optimism is warranted. Recent data indicate that recovery in manufacturing is well established, and service-industry expansion has picked up pace in each of the past three months. Labour markets are finally improving; during the first quarter of this year employment grew by 162,000 or 1.4m, depending on which data set you use. And investors have bought the idea of recovery. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by over 10% since early February, and recently closed above 11,000 for the first time since September 2008.

But full-throated cheerleading is premature. By Mr Gordon's calculations, much of the data point to June 2009 as the likely recession end-date. Since then the American economy has seen a net deterioration in employment by about 900,000 workers. The performance is by far the worst nine-month stretch following a recession of any post-war downturn (see chart). The last time the American unemployment rate rose above 10%, during the recession of 1981-82, the economy added between 1m and 2.5m jobs in the first nine months of recovery.
Meanwhile, housing markets look shaky just as government schemes to support the sector are ending. The Federal Reserve is not cheering: on April 14th Ben Bernanke, the chairman, predicted a “moderate” recovery amidst “significant restraints”. Small-business confidence declined in March for a second month. Any number of unpredictable shocks, from a big sovereign default to rapid monetary tightening in overheating emerging markets, could undermine the recovery.

No vulnerability is so worrisome as unemployment. As of March, 15m Americans were jobless, while another 9m were unwillingly working only part-time. Knowing just when the recession ended will not be of much comfort to them.

---

Quote:

---

"In December 2007, the national unemployment rate was 5.0 percent, and it had been at or below that rate for the previous 30 months. At the end of the recession, in June 2009, it was 9.5 percent. In the months after the recession, the unemployment rate peaked at 10.0 percent (in October 2009)."

---

Quote:

---

"When President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Dow Jones industrial average slumped to 7,949.09, the lowest inaugural performance for the Dow since it's creation."
Source: Investopedia.com

---

Quote:

---

Under former President Bush, the stock market took a 2.3 percent fall on an annualized basis, reflecting the 1 percent increase achieved during his first four years and the 5.5 percent decline suffered during his second term. If nothing else, the historic lows of the Bush administration and the shaky beginnings of the Obama years definitely indicate an economy in flux.

Good news, however, was not too long in coming. Despite its inauspicious economic beginnings, the Obama administration has overseen an impressive upswing in the stock market. As of the end of Obama's term on January 20, 2017, the Dow Jones had more than recovered from its January 2009 slump, resting nicely at 19,732.40 for the day, more than double what it was on inauguration day. More importantly, it had maintained a healthy range of 15,660 and 19,974 in 2016. Though there have been intermittent downturns, the Dow's general upward trend speaks well for the Obama administration's efforts at economic recovery.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Trump is taking credit for something he had nothing to do with.

---

Correction: Trump is taking credit for something that doesn't exist, and never existed in the first place.

Quote:

---

And yeah, things are so great with Mr. Scumbag in office. What a leader!

---

I didn't say he was. In fact, I'd be surprised if somebody could actually dig up a quote where I ever said that he was.

Quote:

---

So, Obama had nothing to do with the economy getting better since the Great Depression of 2008-9?

---

No. He didn't. Because the economy isn't any better since 2008-2009.

Quote:

---

Trump has been in office for 1 year, and you think he had something to do with anything, economically speaking! Okay, I'll bite - what the FUCK did he do - exactly - to bolster the econmomy? What, if any, programs did Trump create to boost the economy?

---

The only thing that benefits me personally so far is that less of my money will be going to Federal taxes next year. Can't say much more than that right now.

What is it exactly that you think Obama did in 8 years?

Quote:

---

Tell me, oh great one.....What the FUCK did he do?

---

What's you're problem, dude? You don't seem like your usual cheery self today.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Dude, I apologize for my surliness.

---

Quote:

---

It's hard for a lot of us to move on, and for us to not be happy that Hillary is not in despite what is going on today. Obama was very bad for a lot of us. Hillary at the very least would have continued that trajectory.

---

Quote:

---

I know you didn't make it up. I've said here anybody who says things like the unemployment rate is good now is just as full of shit as anybody who said it at any point during the Obama administration.

---

Quote:

---

Well that's apparent. But it sure sounded like you were directing the question at me when referring to me as "great one", as if I am symbolic of everything wrong with the world because I voted for Trump. That attitude is probably the biggest reason Trump won.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey Six,

Okay, I'm gonna lay it down gently.....NO!!! Don't care that she lost; I have moved on, I'm not bitter about her losing, FUCK IT! She lost....END of STORY!

---

Hey SGG,

I get it. It's the same way I felt after the last two elections that Obama won. No need to explain yourself to me there.

Quote:

---

If I could vote for Obama again, I would have.

---

Well at least you can say that. I voted against GWB his second term, and I sure as hell wouldn't have voted for him a third time.

Quote:

---

But I'm facing reality....Trump, ugh, won. So now it's time to be president, not a little fucking kid throwing a temper tantrum.

What I wish for most of all, is for Trump to shut the fuck up, roll up his sleeves and get to work. Stop with Hilary this and Obama that. ENOUGH! You are the president, you dumb fuck! Act like it!

---

I agree to a point. I was a fan of his Twitter account before the election. I've said on more than one occasion here since he's been president that his wife should take his phone privileges away from him though.

Quote:

---

I say this much, Hilary would not have us on the verge of Nuclear War. That's it, that's all I have to say about her.

---

Does anybody really believe we're at the brink of war right now? I sleep fine at night. Shit. Maybe that's the benefit to making just enough money at a shitty job to scrape by. No time to worry about the bullshit when there's actually real shit to worry about.

Quote:

---

And still you don't get it about Obama, do you? Well, you have your way of thinking and I have mine.

---

Sure. I don't expect to really change your mind about anything. I'm just wondering what it is that you think I don't get.

Quote:

---

No matter what I say, you're convinced that the country finished up worse off. That's debatable, anyone could say that the fix was in. But, consider this.....all that money that the corporations made - from the stock market and beyond - what you're saying is that Obama is to blame? Obama forced those companies to not pay their employees.

---

Financially speaking I think we finished a lot worse off, mainly because of quantatative easing. I don't deny GWB had a large role in that before Obama was in office. I have a LOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGGGG history here of bitching about GWB while he was president for that very reason, among others.

As far as employment goes, it is just a LOT worse than it was 10 years ago. I'm not joking man. I'm working part time for the same wage I was making back in the late 90s. But this is only part time with no benefits, and back then I was full time with benefits. And gas only cost around a buck a gallon. I would have to work 4 to 5 years at my current job to make what I used to make before I was laid off in 2009.

Is that all Obama's fault. Of course not. I don't deal in absolutes. What I'm sick of hearing though is how great he was for the economy. Obama didn't start the fire, but he sure as hell didn't put it out either. End of story.

Quote:

---

Trump is a classless piece of shit, and he will get his sooner or later. He can't help himself. Now, that's no reflection upon you. Of course, you have to follow what you believe in. You have to trust your instincts no matter what anyone says. I trust my own and I don't care what anyone says. In the long run, I have to live with myself.

---

Well, at the end of the day, my vote didn't even matter. I'm in one of the states that were a lock no matter what I did. I always beat myself up afterward for not voting for Daffy Duck.

I was a huge Trump supporter before the election. Most of that was just because I was not at all happy with the direction the country had been taking for the later half of my life. I saw Hillary as continuing on that path and Trump well.... not.

It's still too early to really make up my mind on any of that. And at the end of the day there really isn't shit I could do about it if I decided I didn't like where we're going.

If nothing else, I like having a President that gets shit all the time. Makes it harder for him to just do whatever the fuck he wants to do. Obama did a lot of bad shit that nobody even talked about because the news wouldn't report on it.

Quote:

---

Did Obama make mistakes. Of course he did.
Is Trump making mistakes. Of course he is.

I will leave it at that.

---

We'll agree to agree then.

Quote:

---

Okay, here's a good rule of thumb: All of it is bullshit for ALL presidents.
All the data that is presented doesn't mean shit because it's all rigged. Hmmm, where have I heard that before? So, the numbers for Obama AND Trump doesn't mean a thing, zip, nada, zilch, zero. So no president can claim victory in that sense. Good, glad we cleared that up.

---

Pretty much man. If things were actually going well now, then we might be able to argue about who had more claim to bragging rights, but when pretty much everybody is doing shitty and there seems to be no light at the end of that tunnel, what the hell would we argue for?

NEXT!

Quote:

---

Well, that line about "great one" that did sound a bit accusatory...I'll give you that one. That wasn't really meant for you. I know, it sounds like a lame excuse, but allow me to explain. I usually use that expression with Kiki and Siggy because of how they come off sounding so superior. Like they know it all. So, I take that back. I was steaming along and got carried away. Of course, you have every right to vote for who you want. And NO, I don't think that my attitude (and those like-minded individuals) have anything to do with Trump winning. I have a different theory about that, but the jury's still out on that one, so I'm not commenting.

---

I'm not without guilt of throwing people into boxes. Like I said though, I try to base these things off of long term patterns of behavior. Much more often than not, you seem to be fairly reasonable. That's why I wanted to bring this up. There's no point in debating with each other if it's just going to be a troll-fight like any single post that T and G and Second make turn into.

Quote:

---

As for the rest of it, we could argue from here to fucking Doomsday and never get anywhere, at least we will not resolve a damn thing that's worthwhile. I could continue to show you data and you'll continue to say that it's all fixed by those who don't give a shit about the average dude.
And who's to say which of us is right? Somewhere in the middle of all that lies the truth of things.

---

I won't say that anything has been fixed by anyone. It's not fixed. It's getting worse. It has been since the late 90's. I don't have a good feeling about the longevity of the US as a world leader.

Sometimes I think... what's the point really? There are just way too many people on the planet now. What purpose in life does half the country, including me, serve if we're just stocking shelves or taking drive through orders? When I was growing up, those were all jobs for kids. Not something that adults do. Now I work with all adults doing that shit.

Quote:

---

As for the Tax "Reform" - well, it was rushed through Congress in "backdoor" secrecy so fast (a matter of weeks) that no one had a good chance to see it (not even most Republicans); nor debate it in normal fashion; to offer up an opinion. So, here we are..."on the raggedy edge"...

---

Well... the same could be said about the ACA, which was completely unsustainable. I agree we need a massive healthcare reform. I'm practically dying now because of stupid choices I've made in the past, but I'm never going to get "healed". I figure I got another dozen or so years left to live. I'm going to work as little as possible in that time for other people and try to make some money my own way. There's only really two things I give a shit about when I die. The first is my niece, and the second is my disabled brother. I hope I can leave them both with a little something special when I'm gone.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Dude, I apologize for my surliness.

I'm just sick of Trump. Period. I'm sick of hearing about Hilary this and Obama that. Fucking guy has absolutely nothing to say about his "accomplishments" so he shoots off his mouth about those two that has nothing to do with anything. They are no longer in the picture. He won and it's been a year and he's still talking shit about Hilary and Obama. Fucking move on already, you are the president.

Ok, enough of that rant.

Well, he's taking credit for something. You say it doesn't exist, fine. But he's taking credit for it. I didn't make it up, he said it. Next:

Quote:

---

I didn't say he was. In fact, I'd be surprised if somebody could actually dig up a quote where I ever said that he was.

---

Never said YOU said anything. I'm just making a statement, a sarcastic statement.
I think he sucks, BIG TIME! That's all.

Quote:

---

No. He didn't. Because the economy isn't any better since 2008-2009.

---

Well now, let's see. When Bush handed Obama the keys to the White House, the economy was pretty much in the toilet. And it lasted well into 2009-10. I looked it up on my phone and, according to the NY Times, the recession ended in Sept. 2010. The recession lasted 18 MONTHS (previous recession lasted 16 months in the 80s).

According to The Economist, April 15, 2010:

Quote:

---

The recession
When did it end?
A question of not just academic interest
Apr 15th 2010 | Washington, dc

THE American recession is over. In the summer of 2009 real GDP and industrial production hit bottom and resumed growth, and expansion in both measures strengthened as the year ended. Industrial production has continued to grow in early 2010 as, in all likelihood, has output. By the end of the current quarter the American economy may have returned to its pre-recession peak in real GDP.
Most economists agree about all of this. Prominent voices like Northwestern University's Robert Gordon, Harvard's Jeffrey Frankel, and Stanford's Robert Hall have declared the recession dead and gone. But those men all sit on the National Bureau of Economic Research's recession-dating committee, responsible for pinpointing the beginning and end of business cycles. On April 12th that committee announced that it was not able to set an official end-date for the American recession.

That a date has not yet been chosen is not that unusual; the committee has taken longer to decide in past recessions. The choice to delay a conclusive statement may have been an act of caution, to avoid a black eye in the event that the economy contracts again before reaching its previous peak.

But the suggestion that the economic pain is not yet definitively over struck a discordant note amid cheerier headlines. Earlier in the month this paper expressed the hope that a needed transition in the American economy had begun, and others have gone further. The New York Times and Washington Post have both featured business columnists arguing that Americans are too pessimistic about the strength of the economy. BusinessWeek praised the success of Obamanomics on its cover. Newsweek's cover announced, “America's Back! The Remarkable Tale of Our Economic Turnaround”.

Some optimism is warranted. Recent data indicate that recovery in manufacturing is well established, and service-industry expansion has picked up pace in each of the past three months. Labour markets are finally improving; during the first quarter of this year employment grew by 162,000 or 1.4m, depending on which data set you use. And investors have bought the idea of recovery. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by over 10% since early February, and recently closed above 11,000 for the first time since September 2008.

But full-throated cheerleading is premature. By Mr Gordon's calculations, much of the data point to June 2009 as the likely recession end-date. Since then the American economy has seen a net deterioration in employment by about 900,000 workers. The performance is by far the worst nine-month stretch following a recession of any post-war downturn (see chart). The last time the American unemployment rate rose above 10%, during the recession of 1981-82, the economy added between 1m and 2.5m jobs in the first nine months of recovery.
Meanwhile, housing markets look shaky just as government schemes to support the sector are ending. The Federal Reserve is not cheering: on April 14th Ben Bernanke, the chairman, predicted a “moderate” recovery amidst “significant restraints”. Small-business confidence declined in March for a second month. Any number of unpredictable shocks, from a big sovereign default to rapid monetary tightening in overheating emerging markets, could undermine the recovery.

No vulnerability is so worrisome as unemployment. As of March, 15m Americans were jobless, while another 9m were unwillingly working only part-time. Knowing just when the recession ended will not be of much comfort to them.

---

Of course, that doesn't mean much to the average Joe that actually works for a living. I make about the same now as I did back in 2008, at the end of the Bush era.
But here's another little tidbit:

Quote:

---

"In December 2007, the national unemployment rate was 5.0 percent, and it had been at or below that rate for the previous 30 months. At the end of the recession, in June 2009, it was 9.5 percent. In the months after the recession, the unemployment rate peaked at 10.0 percent (in October 2009)."

---

The housing market bubble had already burst (no thanks to those Wall Street scumbags), but I digress. Obama was handed a shit pie with a glass of a toxic smoothie for a chaser. Not good by a longshot. You still with me so far? On this much we can agree, it was not good news for anybody back then. The stock market was a shambles.

Quote:

---

"When President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Dow Jones industrial average slumped to 7,949.09, the lowest inaugural performance for the Dow since it's creation."
Source: Investopedia.com

---

Wait, there's more:

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answe
rs/101314/where-was-dow-jones-when-obama-took-office.asp?ad=dirN&qo=investopediaSiteSearch&qsrc=0&o=40186

Quote:

---

Under former President Bush, the stock market took a 2.3 percent fall on an annualized basis, reflecting the 1 percent increase achieved during his first four years and the 5.5 percent decline suffered during his second term. If nothing else, the historic lows of the Bush administration and the shaky beginnings of the Obama years definitely indicate an economy in flux.

Good news, however, was not too long in coming. Despite its inauspicious economic beginnings, the Obama administration has overseen an impressive upswing in the stock market. As of the end of Obama's term on January 20, 2017, the Dow Jones had more than recovered from its January 2009 slump, resting nicely at 19,732.40 for the day, more than double what it was on inauguration day. More importantly, it had maintained a healthy range of 15,660 and 19,974 in 2016. Though there have been intermittent downturns, the Dow's general upward trend speaks well for the Obama administration's efforts at economic recovery.

---

Source:
Read more: Where was the Dow Jones when Obama took office? | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answ
ers/101314/where-was-dow-jones-when-obama-took-office.asp#ixzz53iQ7JeC4
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

I could go on, but you get the picture. As much as any president could take credit or, be blamed for, the rise and fall of the economy, well there you have it. Do we have more money in our pockets? No. But that goes towards the companies and owners not sharing in their new found wealth. And now you say that we'll see a little more in our pay envelopes. Let's see what happens. Still though, you know that's only temporary....

The Tax Reform Bill is so new that economists haven't had a chance to go through it to see exactly how it would impact the economy. So, the jury's still out. But I've heard that it could increase the deficit by $1.5 Trillion, forcing the government to raise taxes down the line. I believe I heard reports that by 2025 the tax benefits would cease and that to make up the deficit, in addition to raising taxes,
Congress will look to cut Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

Now that we could definitely hang on Trump, who pushed the Bill.

SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Trump is taking credit for something he had nothing to do with.

---

Correction: Trump is taking credit for something that doesn't exist, and never existed in the first place.

Quote:

---

And yeah, things are so great with Mr. Scumbag in office. What a leader!

---

I didn't say he was. In fact, I'd be surprised if somebody could actually dig up a quote where I ever said that he was.

Quote:

---

So, Obama had nothing to do with the economy getting better since the Great Depression of 2008-9?

---

No. He didn't. Because the economy isn't any better since 2008-2009.

Quote:

---

Trump has been in office for 1 year, and you think he had something to do with anything, economically speaking! Okay, I'll bite - what the FUCK did he do - exactly - to bolster the econmomy? What, if any, programs did Trump create to boost the economy?

---

The only thing that benefits me personally so far is that less of my money will be going to Federal taxes next year. Can't say much more than that right now.

What is it exactly that you think Obama did in 8 years?

Quote:

---

Tell me, oh great one.....What the FUCK did he do?

---

What's you're problem, dude? You don't seem like your usual cheery self today.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Dude, I apologize for my surliness.

I'm just sick of Trump. Period. I'm sick of hearing about Hilary this and Obama that. Fucking guy has absolutely nothing to say about his "accomplishments" so he shoots off his mouth about those two that has nothing to do with anything. They are no longer in the picture. He won and it's been a year and he's still talking shit about Hilary and Obama. Fucking move on already, you are the president.

Ok, enough of that rant.

Well, he's taking credit for something. You say it doesn't exist, fine. But he's taking credit for it. I didn't make it up, he said it. Next:

Quote:

---

I didn't say he was. In fact, I'd be surprised if somebody could actually dig up a quote where I ever said that he was.

---

Never said YOU said anything. I'm just making a statement, a sarcastic statement.
I think he sucks, BIG TIME! That's all.

Quote:

---

No. He didn't. Because the economy isn't any better since 2008-2009.

---

Well now, let's see. When Bush handed Obama the keys to the White House, the economy was pretty much in the toilet. And it lasted well into 2009-10. I looked it up on my phone and, according to the NY Times, the recession ended in Sept. 2010. The recession lasted 18 MONTHS (previous recession lasted 16 months in the 80s).

According to The Economist, April 15, 2010:

Quote:

---

The recession
When did it end?
A question of not just academic interest
Apr 15th 2010 | Washington, dc

THE American recession is over. In the summer of 2009 real GDP and industrial production hit bottom and resumed growth, and expansion in both measures strengthened as the year ended. Industrial production has continued to grow in early 2010 as, in all likelihood, has output. By the end of the current quarter the American economy may have returned to its pre-recession peak in real GDP.
Most economists agree about all of this. Prominent voices like Northwestern University's Robert Gordon, Harvard's Jeffrey Frankel, and Stanford's Robert Hall have declared the recession dead and gone. But those men all sit on the National Bureau of Economic Research's recession-dating committee, responsible for pinpointing the beginning and end of business cycles. On April 12th that committee announced that it was not able to set an official end-date for the American recession.

That a date has not yet been chosen is not that unusual; the committee has taken longer to decide in past recessions. The choice to delay a conclusive statement may have been an act of caution, to avoid a black eye in the event that the economy contracts again before reaching its previous peak.

But the suggestion that the economic pain is not yet definitively over struck a discordant note amid cheerier headlines. Earlier in the month this paper expressed the hope that a needed transition in the American economy had begun, and others have gone further. The New York Times and Washington Post have both featured business columnists arguing that Americans are too pessimistic about the strength of the economy. BusinessWeek praised the success of Obamanomics on its cover. Newsweek's cover announced, “America's Back! The Remarkable Tale of Our Economic Turnaround”.

Some optimism is warranted. Recent data indicate that recovery in manufacturing is well established, and service-industry expansion has picked up pace in each of the past three months. Labour markets are finally improving; during the first quarter of this year employment grew by 162,000 or 1.4m, depending on which data set you use. And investors have bought the idea of recovery. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by over 10% since early February, and recently closed above 11,000 for the first time since September 2008.

But full-throated cheerleading is premature. By Mr Gordon's calculations, much of the data point to June 2009 as the likely recession end-date. Since then the American economy has seen a net deterioration in employment by about 900,000 workers. The performance is by far the worst nine-month stretch following a recession of any post-war downturn (see chart). The last time the American unemployment rate rose above 10%, during the recession of 1981-82, the economy added between 1m and 2.5m jobs in the first nine months of recovery.
Meanwhile, housing markets look shaky just as government schemes to support the sector are ending. The Federal Reserve is not cheering: on April 14th Ben Bernanke, the chairman, predicted a “moderate” recovery amidst “significant restraints”. Small-business confidence declined in March for a second month. Any number of unpredictable shocks, from a big sovereign default to rapid monetary tightening in overheating emerging markets, could undermine the recovery.

No vulnerability is so worrisome as unemployment. As of March, 15m Americans were jobless, while another 9m were unwillingly working only part-time. Knowing just when the recession ended will not be of much comfort to them.

---

Of course, that doesn't mean much to the average Joe that actually works for a living. I make about the same now as I did back in 2008, at the end of the Bush era.
But here's another little tidbit:

Quote:

---

"In December 2007, the national unemployment rate was 5.0 percent, and it had been at or below that rate for the previous 30 months. At the end of the recession, in June 2009, it was 9.5 percent. In the months after the recession, the unemployment rate peaked at 10.0 percent (in October 2009)."

---

The housing market bubble had already burst (no thanks to those Wall Street scumbags), but I digress. Obama was handed a shit pie with a glass of a toxic smoothie for a chaser. Not good by a longshot. You still with me so far? On this much we can agree, it was not good news for anybody back then. The stock market was a shambles.

Quote:

---

"When President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Dow Jones industrial average slumped to 7,949.09, the lowest inaugural performance for the Dow since it's creation."
Source: Investopedia.com

---

Wait, there's more:

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answer
s/101314/where-was-dow-jones-when-obama-took-office.asp?ad=dirN&qo=investopediaSiteSearch&qsrc=0&o=40186

Quote:

---

Under former President Bush, the stock market took a 2.3 percent fall on an annualized basis, reflecting the 1 percent increase achieved during his first four years and the 5.5 percent decline suffered during his second term. If nothing else, the historic lows of the Bush administration and the shaky beginnings of the Obama years definitely indicate an economy in flux.

Good news, however, was not too long in coming. Despite its inauspicious economic beginnings, the Obama administration has overseen an impressive upswing in the stock market. As of the end of Obama's term on January 20, 2017, the Dow Jones had more than recovered from its January 2009 slump, resting nicely at 19,732.40 for the day, more than double what it was on inauguration day. More importantly, it had maintained a healthy range of 15,660 and 19,974 in 2016. Though there have been intermittent downturns, the Dow's general upward trend speaks well for the Obama administration's efforts at economic recovery.

---

Source:
Read more: Where was the Dow Jones when Obama took office? | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answe
rs/101314/where-was-dow-jones-when-obama-took-office.asp#ixzz53iQ7JeC4
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

I could go on, but you get the picture. As much as any president could take credit or, be blamed for, the rise and fall of the economy, well there you have it. Do we have more money in our pockets? No. But that goes towards the companies and owners not sharing in their new found wealth. And now you say that we'll see a little more in our pay envelopes. Let's see what happens. Still though, you know that's only temporary....

The Tax Reform Bill is so new that economists haven't had a chance to go through it to see exactly how it would impact the economy. So, the jury's still out. But I've heard that it could increase the deficit by $1.5 Trillion, forcing the government to raise taxes down the line. I believe I heard reports that by 2025 the tax benefits would cease and that to make up the deficit, in addition to

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Trump is taking credit for something he had nothing to do with.

---

Correction: Trump is taking credit for something that doesn't exist, and never existed in the first place.

Quote:

---

And yeah, things are so great with Mr. Scumbag in office. What a leader!

---

I didn't say he was. In fact, I'd be surprised if somebody could actually dig up a quote where I ever said that he was.

Quote:

---

So, Obama had nothing to do with the economy getting better since the Great Depression of 2008-9?

---

No. He didn't. Because the economy isn't any better since 2008-2009.

Quote:

---

Trump has been in office for 1 year, and you think he had something to do with anything, economically speaking! Okay, I'll bite - what the FUCK did he do - exactly - to bolster the econmomy? What, if any, programs did Trump create to boost the economy?

---

The only thing that benefits me personally so far is that less of my money will be going to Federal taxes next year. Can't say much more than that right now.

What is it exactly that you think Obama did in 8 years?

Quote:

---

Tell me, oh great one.....What the FUCK did he do?

---

What's you're problem, dude? You don't seem like your usual cheery self today.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I understand that under Trump, black unemployment has fallen to the lowest level in 17 years.

I am shocked, just shocked I say, that I have not heard the MSM uncover this fact.

---

Also, black homeownership is now at the highest level, ever.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I thought this was the thread about Trump's successes.
Bit of a turnabout.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Dude, I apologize for my surliness.

I'm just sick of Trump. Period. I'm sick of hearing about Hilary this and Obama that. Fucking guy has absolutely nothing to say about his "accomplishments" so he shoots off his mouth about those two that has nothing to do with anything. They are no longer in the picture. He won and it's been a year and he's still talking shit about Hilary and Obama. Fucking move on already, you are the president.

Ok, enough of that rant.

Well, he's taking credit for something. You say it doesn't exist, fine. But he's taking credit for it. I didn't make it up, he said it. Next:

Quote:

---

I didn't say he was. In fact, I'd be surprised if somebody could actually dig up a quote where I ever said that he was.

---

Never said YOU said anything. I'm just making a statement, a sarcastic statement.
I think he sucks, BIG TIME! That's all.

Quote:

---

No. He didn't. Because the economy isn't any better since 2008-2009.

---

Well now, let's see. When Bush handed Obama the keys to the White House, the economy was pretty much in the toilet. And it lasted well into 2009-10. I looked it up on my phone and, according to the NY Times, the recession ended in Sept. 2010. The recession lasted 18 MONTHS (previous recession lasted 16 months in the 80s).

According to The Economist, April 15, 2010:

Quote:

---

The recession
When did it end?
A question of not just academic interest
Apr 15th 2010 | Washington, dc

THE American recession is over. In the summer of 2009 real GDP and industrial production hit bottom and resumed growth, and expansion in both measures strengthened as the year ended. Industrial production has continued to grow in early 2010 as, in all likelihood, has output. By the end of the current quarter the American economy may have returned to its pre-recession peak in real GDP.
Most economists agree about all of this. Prominent voices like Northwestern University's Robert Gordon, Harvard's Jeffrey Frankel, and Stanford's Robert Hall have declared the recession dead and gone. But those men all sit on the National Bureau of Economic Research's recession-dating committee, responsible for pinpointing the beginning and end of business cycles. On April 12th that committee announced that it was not able to set an official end-date for the American recession.

That a date has not yet been chosen is not that unusual; the committee has taken longer to decide in past recessions. The choice to delay a conclusive statement may have been an act of caution, to avoid a black eye in the event that the economy contracts again before reaching its previous peak.

But the suggestion that the economic pain is not yet definitively over struck a discordant note amid cheerier headlines. Earlier in the month this paper expressed the hope that a needed transition in the American economy had begun, and others have gone further. The New York Times and Washington Post have both featured business columnists arguing that Americans are too pessimistic about the strength of the economy. BusinessWeek praised the success of Obamanomics on its cover. Newsweek's cover announced, “America's Back! The Remarkable Tale of Our Economic Turnaround”.

Some optimism is warranted. Recent data indicate that recovery in manufacturing is well established, and service-industry expansion has picked up pace in each of the past three months. Labour markets are finally improving; during the first quarter of this year employment grew by 162,000 or 1.4m, depending on which data set you use. And investors have bought the idea of recovery. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by over 10% since early February, and recently closed above 11,000 for the first time since September 2008.

But full-throated cheerleading is premature. By Mr Gordon's calculations, much of the data point to June 2009 as the likely recession end-date. Since then the American economy has seen a net deterioration in employment by about 900,000 workers. The performance is by far the worst nine-month stretch following a recession of any post-war downturn (see chart). The last time the American unemployment rate rose above 10%, during the recession of 1981-82, the economy added between 1m and 2.5m jobs in the first nine months of recovery.
Meanwhile, housing markets look shaky just as government schemes to support the sector are ending. The Federal Reserve is not cheering: on April 14th Ben Bernanke, the chairman, predicted a “moderate” recovery amidst “significant restraints”. Small-business confidence declined in March for a second month. Any number of unpredictable shocks, from a big sovereign default to rapid monetary tightening in overheating emerging markets, could undermine the recovery.

No vulnerability is so worrisome as unemployment. As of March, 15m Americans were jobless, while another 9m were unwillingly working only part-time. Knowing just when the recession ended will not be of much comfort to them.

---

Of course, that doesn't mean much to the average Joe that actually works for a living. I make about the same now as I did back in 2008, at the end of the Bush era.
But here's another little tidbit:

Quote:

---

"In December 2007, the national unemployment rate was 5.0 percent, and it had been at or below that rate for the previous 30 months. At the end of the recession, in June 2009, it was 9.5 percent. In the months after the recession, the unemployment rate peaked at 10.0 percent (in October 2009)."

---

The housing market bubble had already burst (no thanks to those Wall Street scumbags), but I digress. Obama was handed a shit pie with a glass of a toxic smoothie for a chaser. Not good by a longshot. You still with me so far? On this much we can agree, it was not good news for anybody back then. The stock market was a shambles.

Quote:

---

"When President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Dow Jones industrial average slumped to 7,949.09, the lowest inaugural performance for the Dow since it's creation."
Source: Investopedia.com

---

Wait, there's more:

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answe
rs/101314/where-was-dow-jones-when-obama-took-office.asp?ad=dirN&qo=investopediaSiteSearch&qsrc=0&o=40186

Quote:

---

Under former President Bush, the stock market took a 2.3 percent fall on an annualized basis, reflecting the 1 percent increase achieved during his first four years and the 5.5 percent decline suffered during his second term. If nothing else, the historic lows of the Bush administration and the shaky beginnings of the Obama years definitely indicate an economy in flux.

Good news, however, was not too long in coming. Despite its inauspicious economic beginnings, the Obama administration has overseen an impressive upswing in the stock market. As of the end of Obama's term on January 20, 2017, the Dow Jones had more than recovered from its January 2009 slump, resting nicely at 19,732.40 for the day, more than double what it was on inauguration day. More importantly, it had maintained a healthy range of 15,660 and 19,974 in 2016. Though there have been intermittent downturns, the Dow's general upward trend speaks well for the Obama administration's efforts at economic recovery.

---

Source:
Read more: Where was the Dow Jones when Obama took office? | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answ
ers/101314/where-was-dow-jones-when-obama-took-office.asp#ixzz53iQ7JeC4
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

I could go on, but you get the picture. As much as any president could take credit or, be blamed for, the rise and fall of the economy, well there you have it. Do we have more money in our pockets? No. But that goes towards the companies and owners not sharing in their new found wealth. And now you say that we'll see a little more in our pay envelopes. Let's see what happens. Still though, you know that's only temporary....

The Tax Reform Bill is so new that economists haven't had a chance to go through it to see exactly how it would impact the economy. So, the jury's still out. But I've heard that it could increase the deficit by $1.5 Trillion, forcing the government to raise taxes down the line. I believe I heard reports that by 2025 the tax benefits would cease and that to make up the deficit, in addition to raising taxes,
Congress will look to cut Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

Now that we could definitely hang on Trump, who pushed the Bill.

SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Trump is taking credit for something he had nothing to do with.

---

Correction: Trump is taking credit for something that doesn't exist, and never existed in the first place.

Quote:

---

And yeah, things are so great with Mr. Scumbag in office. What a leader!

---

I didn't say he was. In fact, I'd be surprised if somebody could actually dig up a quote where I ever said that he was.

Quote:

---

So, Obama had nothing to do with the economy getting better since the Great Depression of 2008-9?

---

No. He didn't. Because the economy isn't any better since 2008-2009.

Quote:

---

Trump has been in office for 1 year, and you think he had something to do with anything, economically speaking! Okay, I'll bite - what the FUCK did he do - exactly - to bolster the econmomy? What, if any, programs did Trump create to boost the economy?

---

The only thing that benefits me personally so far is that less of my money will be going to Federal taxes next year. Can't say much more than that right now.

What is it exactly that you think Obama did in 8 years?

Quote:

---

Tell me, oh great one.....What the FUCK did he do?

---

What's you're problem, dude? You don't seem like your usual cheery self today.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Dude, I apologize for my surliness.

I'm just sick of Trump. Period. I'm sick of hearing about Hilary this and Obama that. Fucking guy has absolutely nothing to say about his "accomplishments" so he shoots off his mouth about those two that has nothing to do with anything. They are no longer in the picture. He won and it's been a year and he's still talking shit about Hilary and Obama. Fucking move on already, you are the president.

Ok, enough of that rant.

Well, he's taking credit for something. You say it doesn't exist, fine. But he's taking credit for it. I didn't make it up, he said it. Next:

Quote:

---

I didn't say he was. In fact, I'd be surprised if somebody could actually dig up a quote where I ever said that he was.

---

Never said YOU said anything. I'm just making a statement, a sarcastic statement.
I think he sucks, BIG TIME! That's all.

Quote:

---

No. He didn't. Because the economy isn't any better since 2008-2009.

---

Well now, let's see. When Bush handed Obama the keys to the White House, the economy was pretty much in the toilet. And it lasted well into 2009-10. I looked it up on my phone and, according to the NY Times, the recession ended in Sept. 2010. The recession lasted 18 MONTHS (previous recession lasted 16 months in the 80s).

According to The Economist, April 15, 2010:

Quote:

---

The recession
When did it end?
A question of not just academic interest
Apr 15th 2010 | Washington, dc

THE American recession is over. In the summer of 2009 real GDP and industrial production hit bottom and resumed growth, and expansion in both measures strengthened as the year ended. Industrial production has continued to grow in early 2010 as, in all likelihood, has output. By the end of the current quarter the American economy may have returned to its pre-recession peak in real GDP.
Most economists agree about all of this. Prominent voices like Northwestern University's Robert Gordon, Harvard's Jeffrey Frankel, and Stanford's Robert Hall have declared the recession dead and gone. But those men all sit on the National Bureau of Economic Research's recession-dating committee, responsible for pinpointing the beginning and end of business cycles. On April 12th that committee announced that it was not able to set an official end-date for the American recession.

That a date has not yet been chosen is not that unusual; the committee has taken longer to decide in past recessions. The choice to delay a conclusive statement may have been an act of caution, to avoid a black eye in the event that the economy contracts again before reaching its previous peak.

But the suggestion that the economic pain is not yet definitively over struck a discordant note amid cheerier headlines. Earlier in the month this paper expressed the hope that a needed transition in the American economy had begun, and others have gone further. The New York Times and Washington Post have both featured business columnists arguing that Americans are too pessimistic about the strength of the economy. BusinessWeek praised the success of Obamanomics on its cover. Newsweek's cover announced, “America's Back! The Remarkable Tale of Our Economic Turnaround”.

Some optimism is warranted. Recent data indicate that recovery in manufacturing is well established, and service-industry expansion has picked up pace in each of the past three months. Labour markets are finally improving; during the first quarter of this year employment grew by 162,000 or 1.4m, depending on which data set you use. And investors have bought the idea of recovery. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by over 10% since early February, and recently closed above 11,000 for the first time since September 2008.

But full-throated cheerleading is premature. By Mr Gordon's calculations, much of the data point to June 2009 as the likely recession end-date. Since then the American economy has seen a net deterioration in employment by about 900,000 workers. The performance is by far the worst nine-month stretch following a recession of any post-war downturn (see chart). The last time the American unemployment rate rose above 10%, during the recession of 1981-82, the economy added between 1m and 2.5m jobs in the first nine months of recovery.
Meanwhile, housing markets look shaky just as government schemes to support the sector are ending. The Federal Reserve is not cheering: on April 14th Ben Bernanke, the chairman, predicted a “moderate” recovery amidst “significant restraints”. Small-business confidence declined in March for a second month. Any number of unpredictable shocks, from a big sovereign default to rapid monetary tightening in overheating emerging markets, could undermine the recovery.

No vulnerability is so worrisome as unemployment. As of March, 15m Americans were jobless, while another 9m were unwillingly working only part-time. Knowing just when the recession ended will not be of much comfort to them.

---

Of course, that doesn't mean much to the average Joe that actually works for a living. I make about the same now as I did back in 2008, at the end of the Bush era.
But here's another little tidbit:

Quote:

---

"In December 2007, the national unemployment rate was 5.0 percent, and it had been at or below that rate for the previous 30 months. At the end of the recession, in June 2009, it was 9.5 percent. In the months after the recession, the unemployment rate peaked at 10.0 percent (in October 2009)."

---

The housing market bubble had already burst (no thanks to those Wall Street scumbags), but I digress. Obama was handed a shit pie with a glass of a toxic smoothie for a chaser. Not good by a longshot. You still with me so far? On this much we can agree, it was not good news for anybody back then. The stock market was a shambles.

Quote:

---

"When President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Dow Jones industrial average slumped to 7,949.09, the lowest inaugural performance for the Dow since it's creation."
Source: Investopedia.com

---

Wait, there's more:

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answer
s/101314/where-was-dow-jones-when-obama-took-office.asp?ad=dirN&qo=investopediaSiteSearch&qsrc=0&o=40186

Quote:

---

Under former President Bush, the stock market took a 2.3 percent fall on an annualized basis, reflecting the 1 percent increase achieved during his first four years and the 5.5 percent decline suffered during his second term. If nothing else, the historic lows of the Bush administration and the shaky beginnings of the Obama years definitely indicate an economy in flux.

Good news, however, was not too long in coming. Despite its inauspicious economic beginnings, the Obama administration has overseen an impressive upswing in the stock market. As of the end of Obama's term on January 20, 2017, the Dow Jones had more than recovered from its January 2009 slump, resting nicely at 19,732.40 for the day, more than double what it was on inauguration day. More importantly, it had maintained a healthy range of 15,660 and 19,974 in 2016. Though there have been intermittent downturns, the Dow's general upward trend speaks well for the Obama administration's efforts at economic recovery.

---

Source:
Read more: Where was the Dow Jones when Obama took office? | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answe
rs/101314/where-was-dow-jones-when-obama-took-office.asp#ixzz53iQ7JeC4
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

I could go on, but you get the picture. As much as any president could take credit or, be blamed for, the rise and fall of the economy, well there you have it. Do we have more money in our pockets? No. But that goes towards the companies and owners not sharing in their new found wealth. And now you say that we'll see a little more in our pay envelopes. Let's see what happens. Still though, you know that's only temporary....

The Tax Reform Bill is so new that economists haven't had a chance to go through it to see exactly how it would impact the economy. So, the jury's still out. But I've heard that it could increase the deficit by $1.5 Trillion, forcing the government to raise taxes down the line. I believe I heard reports that by 2025 the tax benefits would cease and that to make up the deficit, in addition to

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Trump is taking credit for something he had nothing to do with.

---

Correction: Trump is taking credit for something that doesn't exist, and never existed in the first place.

Quote:

---

And yeah, things are so great with Mr. Scumbag in office. What a leader!

---

I didn't say he was. In fact, I'd be surprised if somebody could actually dig up a quote where I ever said that he was.

Quote:

---

So, Obama had nothing to do with the economy getting better since the Great Depression of 2008-9?

---

No. He didn't. Because the economy isn't any better since 2008-2009.

Quote:

---

Trump has been in office for 1 year, and you think he had something to do with anything, economically speaking! Okay, I'll bite - what the FUCK did he do - exactly - to bolster the econmomy? What, if any, programs did Trump create to boost the economy?

---

The only thing that benefits me personally so far is that less of my money will be going to Federal taxes next year. Can't say much more than that right now.

What is it exactly that you think Obama did in 8 years?

Quote:

---

Tell me, oh great one.....What the FUCK did he do?

---

What's you're problem, dude? You don't seem like your usual cheery self today.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

---

I am not sure if this is a masterpiece of cut and paste.

---

Quote:

---

I am not sure if this is a masterpiece of cut and paste.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I thought this was the thread about Trump's successes.
Bit of a turnabout.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
This thread is about Trump's promises, mainly draining the swamp. It's in the title. This is a campaign promise, you know, the type ALL politicians make. The type that fill the swamp, which is to say the type he promised to drain.

So, I'm wondering.......is he practicing to "drain" the swamp by doing exactly how the "politicians" do it...you know, so he knows how they fill it, to then drain it. That must be it. That has to be it. Oh, now I see. You know, I take it back, he IS a smart man.

In order to drain it, he first needs to know how they fill the swamp. I have to compliment Trump, I would have never thought of doing it that way. So he IS a genius. Wow, who'd of thunk it.

Boy, do I have egg on my face. He's using reverse psychology. Make that man president....now we're talking. Make America Great Again! Now I get it!
He's really showing "us" just how the real "politicians" do it, then he's going to expose all those phony baloneys. Gee Whiz, Gosh almighty....he's
a gosh darn wizard, he is.


SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I thought this was the thread about Trump's successes.
Bit of a turnabout.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I revisited this thread because I'm still scratching my head on this comment.
You know me as an individual who creates critiques on the communication of the day, especially those made by the obnoxious - namely, in this case, Trump.

I don't think my answer was complete. How did you not get my gist from the comment I made? Anyway, if you didn't know from the thread topic, then surely you could have guessed it from the author of the thread.


SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I thought this was the thread about Trump's successes.
Bit of a turnabout.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"It's just more evidence of what we suspected SGG. The Russians are here. "

logic fail - spectacularly, hilariously, in a noteworthy way

You're like Wishi. Every time you post your pompous, self-important judgments - that are 180 off from reality - you get funnier and funnier.

---

13 Russians indicted.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

And the Russians are STILL not here.

---

And now, if they go anywhere where there are extradition laws they'll wind up here. Ain't it great!!!


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
And the Russians are STILL not here.

---