REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Draining The Swamp

POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Saturday, August 12, 2023 08:45
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 21747
PAGE 5 of 6

Tuesday, November 28, 2017 5:33 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


LOL... more insults by T. Big surprise. He just can't help himself. It's in his blood.

Why so angry?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 29, 2017 5:49 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Thgrri, this thread is about "Draining the Swamp" - a campaign promise made by the incredibly asinine Trump, a total idiot when it comes to applying governmental principles. Basically, he's playing at president. What, if anything does he know about "draining" the so-called "swamp" that he states the federal government is?

Nothing.

But forget that. Don't pay attention to what he says, it's all lies. Pay close attention to what he does and what he's done. Right now at this moment, how many state department posts he has actually filled? There are literally hundreds of posts that have gone unfilled. Most of those seats are career posts of people who have served the country under both Democratic and Republican presidents. Their job has been to conduct the foreign affairs of the country. Diplomatic affairs, not so much political, although politics is somehow involved. The claim again is that there is corruption within the State Dept. - The so-called Deep State - a fictitious 'James Bond' misnomer. But, let's for a moment say it's true. Wouldn't it behoove the "president" and his crack staff of the BreitBart brain trust, to go about replacing those people that were removed, with their own people?

Think about it. Wouldn't that give them better control of the situation? Only if you wanted to 'control' the situation. Otherwise, by not filling those slots, you open up the department, and for that matter, the country to weakness and chaos. For instance, to assist the Secretary of State, in conducting the foreign affairs of the country. Have you heard anything about Tillerson making any headway in the diplomacy department with N. Korea? The president is playing twitter games and N. Korea is testing a rocket that could reach Washington, D.C. It's making the world and us, a little nervous. I swear it's being done on purpose! Why else would you gut the State Dept? Why else would you threaten the leader of N. Korea? Why would you not Put-in your people to fill those important seats? They filled in the CFPB seat, although someone was picked to run the agency. Why there and not in the State Dept.?

I've heard a rumor that Mulvaney is going to dismantle the agency. In the last couple of years, the agency has managed to recuperate $12 billion and return it to consumers who were ripped off. There is no logic to dismantling this office, except for one thing: the banks and Wall Street corporations. He is a Tea Party rep who is looking to reduce the size of government. Man, he must be getting paid a shitload of money from those institutions. Bye, bye CFPB!

This is NOT about "draining" anything. This is NOT about removing corruption or malfeasance. This is purely about dismantling, nay, DESTROYING, effective government that keeps our country running like a well-oiled machine. This is about WEAKENING our country. Now THAT'S treason! IMHO.


SGG




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


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:05 AM

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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:37 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Trump is consistent in trying to bring manufacturing back from China:

Quote:

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

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:43 PM

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:13 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You're posting Trumps lies. He is getting his clocked cleaned by the Chinese.
Better than diving headfirst into the TTP and TTIP.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:21 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

This is from the Financial Times, which you need a subscription to access, so I'm not sure how well you'll be able to access the website.


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:24 PM

THGRRI


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 7:51 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

So THUGR, since I KNOW you can't write this coherently, you really should provide a link to where this came from ....

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 ...

Quote:

that came into effect in 2006. That deal removed tariffs on most goods traded between the countries promised to cut more
They say that like this is a GOOD thing. Did you know that America was protectionist (with import tariffs) through most of its history, up until the end of WWII, in order to promote its own industrialization? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history

Quote:

... and also to co-operate on wider issues such as employment practices, intellectual property and competition policies.
I have no idea what most of this means. I know that the "intellectual property" provisions mean that nations would honor each others copyrights, patents, and brand names, not sell "knock-off" products or ripped films or generic pharmaceuticals, nor reproduce GMO seeds for sale etc. But what do they mean by "employment practices" and "competition policies"? And does that mean that we would have to adopt the "employment practices" of the trade agreement, irrespective of what we might LIKE to do internally?

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.
So what? If you have a bunch of people negotiating how often to get butt-fucked and how hard, is that an agreement you want to bind yourself to? You have to show that it's a real benefit to average Americans and to the American economy before I lose any sleep over it. Having a "seat at the table" is a meaningless phrase, so far.
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.
And China not included.

Quote:

The agreement was designed so that it could eventually create a new single market, something like that of the EU.
And look how well that worked out for Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland and Portugal!

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.
Again, China was not in the TPP.

Please, link where you got this info because it is so much blah-blah-blah/ hype. I'd like to know which provisions? Which industries? And what about that "expected profits" provision?

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 8:25 PM

THGRRI


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:34 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:01 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


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




Don't hold your breath Sigs. I've been waiting for several days for somebody to give me a reason why Trump's Pocahontas comment was a racial slur, but nobody can give me an actual answer. The best I got was "if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you."



Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:53 PM

THGRRI


Oh my god sig, Jack, the two of you oh my god!


T

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 1, 2017 1:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well I see THUGR shit a gif again!

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 1, 2017 1:52 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


The deflections of your typical neo-liberal regressionist. No thoughts. All feels.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 2, 2017 3:31 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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?

A chorus of crickets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 5:33 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Hey Thgrri,

Haven't you heard, he's the Great Negotiator!


SGG


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


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 1, 2018 6:41 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 4, 2018 8:44 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 5, 2018 10:05 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 5, 2018 10:19 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


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.



I don't know about the black employment/homeownership rates, but anybody saying that Unemployment in general is low is full of shit. They were when Obama said it, and they are now.



Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 7, 2018 5:39 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


First of all, it was announced on MSM the other day. But, I'm shocked that the same guy, and I use the term loosely, the same scumbag who "redlined" black folk from buying/renting apartments in affluent neighborhoods in New York, would lift even a pinky to help black people own homes, much less provide positive leadership and affect change in the unemployment sector.

Got to be a hangover from the Obama Administration and the programs he created during his 8 years of socio-economic advancement. You know, that libtard socialist movement you right-wing death squads like to talk so much shit about. I can't imagine Trump being for such liberal programs and advancement by any people of color. Hell, then that would make Trump a - dare I say it out loud in public - A SOCIALIST!!!

Wouldn't his KKK Membership be revoked!? Surely the Nazis would drum him out of the SS....Wow! There must be some mistake! What would his donors think? Somehow, I think he'll make it up to the Koch Brothers. Yeah, that's gotta be it. He's got a
hostile takeover plan up his sleeve. Somewhat like the one he's trying to pull on the good folks of Puerto Rico. First, lull them to sleep with master race lies, then lower the boom. Wall Street, then change a few laws, then declare a State of Emergency benefitting the Hedge Fund Crooks holding illegal bonds and such to foreclose on the proper owners.

That's gotta be the plan.

Scumbags all!


SGG


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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 7, 2018 7:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 7, 2018 7:07 AM

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. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 9, 2018 5:43 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Siggy, you're way too easy. The only one boasting anything is Trump. Funny how the right wing complains of people living off welfare, and yet still complains about "baristas" working minimum hours (as a set up by the very people who complain most).

Tell me, since you know everything. What constitutes "employment" and "unemployment"? - please, I'm so far behind. Enlighten us poor dullards.


SGG



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


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 9, 2018 5:51 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Trump is taking credit for something he had nothing to do with.
And yeah, things are so great with Mr. Scumbag in office. What a leader!
So, Obama had nothing to do with the economy getting better since the Great Depression of 2008-9?

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?

Infratructure? (like he promised)
The Wall? (like he promised)
Immigration Reform? (like he promised)

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


SGG


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. :)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 9, 2018 6:00 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


You know what? I take that back...I know what he did to bolster the economy:

He revitalized the Golfing Industry..................
.........111 Days of Golf. Damn, now that's leadership.

"Hey Ivanka, what's on the agenda today?"

"You have to screw your constituents out of any possible advancement by pushing the...ahem! 'Tax Reform' daddy"

"Call those two scum suckers, you know...McConnell and Ryan. Get them to do it."

"Ok, daddy.."

"Phew! I'm exhausted...I'm going golfing. Get my private jet ready!"

What a leader!


SGG

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. :)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 9, 2018 6:20 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Yay, Siggy!

Quote:

So put down the bottle, and try again.


And yet another example.


SGG


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 9, 2018 6:49 AM

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. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:29 PM

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/answers/101314/where-was-dow-jones-wh
en-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/answers/101314/where-was-dow-jones-wh
en-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/answers/101314/where-was-dow-jones-wh
en-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/answers/101314/where-was-dow-jones-wh
en-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. :)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 9, 2018 9:05 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

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



No worries. It happens.

Quote:

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.


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:

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.


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:

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



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:

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).


Written by a bunch of suits who were doing just fine. The article certainly wasn't written by the nearly 60% of people who are working below the federal poverty level now.


Quote:

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.


No it doesn't mean much. Congratulations on at least keeping your old salary and only losing to inflation for 9 years. Most of us who lost our jobs around that time are making a fraction of what we used to make and there still is no fix for that in sight.

Quote:

But here's another little tidbit:

"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)."



As I said, unemployment numbers are bullshit. They do not count anybody who hasn't gotten a job after benefits run out, and they consider a part time job for peanuts a suitable replacement for a full time livable wage with benefits.

Quote:

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.



I know it's only temporary. But what I see so far wasn't bad for the worker. It wasn't outrageously good either, but I don't see the bad part everyone was screaming about a few weeks ago. Your reports about 2025 are correct. I haven't heard details about what might revert if it's not voted to continue.

Quantitative Easing is what "fixed" the economy. That was a Federal Reserve patch job that Obama allowed that put the US dollar on the fast track to worthlessness. I'm hoping I don't see it happen in our lifetimes, but I'm imagining people going to the market with wheelbarrows of US cash to buy a loaf of bread.

In the end, it looks like all of that new money is going into the DOW, which isn't helping anybody.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2018 4:43 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Hey Six,

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.


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!
If I could vote for Obama again, I would have. 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 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. And still you don't get it about Obama, do you? Well, you have your way of thinking and I have mine.
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.

And the banks....before Obama took office....you know that the Bush Administration gave them cart blanche, right? Obama bailed out the Auto Industry. You do remember that, right? Was it to benefit the large auto corporations that were failing? What about the thousands of avergae Joes working at those plants? The guys like you and me. I suppose you have a negative to match that, don't you?

I don't know all of the little negatives you come up with regarding Obama. But I do know that Trump fucked with him, in ways that you just don't do.
And with all of that fucking mess, he still treated Trump with dignity; which, IMHO, he didn't deserve. 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.

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

I will leave it at that.

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.


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.

NEXT!

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.


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.

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.

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"...


SGG





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2018 8:32 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


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. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2018 11:17 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 10, 2018 4:26 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I thought this was the thread about Trump's successes.
Bit of a turnabout.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 19, 2018 6:50 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


All this in a year.............Wow! Trump IS a miracle worker.


SGG


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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 19, 2018 7:06 AM

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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 19, 2018 7:12 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


You know, it's a little bit funny.....here I thought you would follow in the footsteps of your favorite buddies, SIG and Keeks. What I mean is, they insist heavily upon folks "citing" stuff, you know, attributing statements with facts, so as to legitimize and back up claims.

I thought you would approve and be satisfied that I backed up my claims with these little facts. Normally I just comment, but I really wanted to sound so much like those two geniuses. Was it too much? I could never really tell if I went too far.


SGG

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:53 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Quote:

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


Yes. Yes, it was a masterpiece. Thank you for noticing.
One question though: Do you have this same attitude towards Keeks and Siggy when they do it? You do realize that they always ask for cites and statements of fact, to support whatever claims are made, right?


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 31, 2018 3:04 AM

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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 31, 2018 7:58 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


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.




I dunno man. A lot of people with nice cushy government jobs have either been fired or quit in the last year. Some of them pretty damn high profile.

That's never a thing to celebrate in the private sector, but I smile real wide in this brave new economy everytime I hear about it happening in the public sector.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 31, 2018 3:12 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.


Sometimes you make sense and are reasonable. I conjured this was one of those. I don't follow everything you post, any many threads I don't bother with, so I wouldn't know what you post in there.

I didn't really think of you as a tweeterbot or facebound. Thanks for the clarification, but forgive me if I forget about it sometime.
If you want us to know what you're babbling about regarding twits, kindly post a transcript of whatever you are reacting to. I don't know anybody who siphons political social media like that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 18, 2018 12:30 PM

THGRRI


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 18, 2018 12:31 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


lol

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 18, 2018 12:42 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


And the Russians are STILL not here.




So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 18, 2018 12:47 PM

THGRRI


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 18, 2018 12:51 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Same with poor George W and his war crimes indictments. I guess those people will just have to manage their itineraries.

But mostly - I don't care.




So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 18, 2018 1:13 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

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


So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?
But but but they said they were here, and they pretended they were here. Doesn't that count for anything?
Or only in Libtard fantasyland?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 18, 2018 2:22 PM

THGRRI


GOP senator: 'There will be hell to pay' if Russia tries to meddle in 2018 midterms

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) on Sunday warned "there will be hell to pay" if Russians attempt to meddle in the upcoming U.S. midterm elections.

http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/374388-gop-senator-there
-will-be-hell-to-pay-if-russia-tries-to-meddle-in



T

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 18, 2018 2:30 PM

THGRRI


It's Mueller that's draining the swamp. Not Trump but Mueller.



T

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 18:43 - 50 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL