[ldrews]

Poll: Around 64 Percent Of Small Business Owners Say Trump Is Making Their Enterprises Great Again

https://townhall.com...-again-n2440095

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2018-January-22, 10:14, said:

I view Fredo's base as those who either: A) support him unequivocally or B) who always vote, regardless, and always vote Republican.

IMO, the type of person you describe is the type who can be as easily uninspired as inspired and is as apt to stay home on election day as fight the lines to vote.

Lines? What lines?

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2018-January-26, 16:35, said:

Lines? What lines?

I guess that depends on where you vote. Here, there were long lines.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2018-January-26, 16:35, said:

Lines? What lines?

You're white Ed

You don't get lines...

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2018-January-26, 12:08, said:

Reality sucks, doesn't it?

It sure does when you try to make arguments based on isolated opinions, not facts.

Here are some real data to chew over.

GDP Growth Rate Obama years:

2016 1.5%
2015 2.6%
2014 2.4%
2013 1.5%
2012 2.3%
2011 1.6%

GDP Growth Rate Trump 2017

2017 2.3%

1st Qtr 1.2%
2nd Qtr 3.1%
3rd Qtr 3.2%
4th Qtr 2.6%

Since Trump didn't take office until the end of January, the 1st quarter would seem to be more a carryover of Obama's policies than Trump's policies. In any case, there would be a lag in the economy adjusting to a new President in charge. But it looks so far like once Trump was in charge and started to progress a pro growth agenda, the economy perked up considerably.

[PassedOut]

It was good to see that Nikki Haley pushed back hard against the rumor that she had an affair with Trump:

Quote

Have you seen the man?! The very thought of it makes me want to vomit!

[ldrews]

More MAGA! https://www.reuters....SKBN1FF1X2?il=0

[y66]

From In a Comically Drawn Pennsylvania District, the Voters Are Not Amused at NYT:

Quote

KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa. — It was supposed to be a political firewall. It has become a laughingstock.

The Seventh Congressional District in Pennsylvania is nicknamed Goofy Kicking Donald Duck because its highly contorted shape resembles one Disney character planting a foot in the posterior of another.

But the district got the boot itself this week, along with the rest of the state’s political map. Pennsylvania’s highest court said the Congressional boundaries didn’t just look funny, they also violated the State Constitution, by unfairly favoring the Republicans who drew them.

The decision was greeted with joy by Democrats, and even some Republicans, in the Goofy district, which spreads like an ink blot for 50 miles from the Philadelphia suburbs all the way out to Amish country. Residents have grown weary of having their House seat held up as one of the most gerrymandered in the country, used to explain the country’s descent into tribal politics and voter cynicism.

“The Seventh District has become a national joke,” said Beth Lawn, 72, who lives in a neighborhood she calls “one of Goofy’s fingers.” It was carved from the city of Chester, predominantly poor and black, south of Philadelphia.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2018-January-26, 19:49, said:

It was good to see that Nikki Haley pushed back hard against the rumor that she had an affair with Trump:


"Have you seen the man?! The very thought of it makes me want to vomit!"

Even if this is fake news it is great fake news.

[Winstonm]

FP reports that Fredo in June was trying to intimidate witnesses:

Quote

President Donald Trump Fredo pressed senior aides last June to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI officials after learning that those specific employees were likely to be witnesses against him as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, according to two people directly familiar with the matter

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2018-January-26, 18:03, said:

It sure does when you try to make arguments based on isolated opinions, not facts.

Here are some real data to chew over.

GDP Growth Rate Obama years:

2016 1.5%
2015 2.6%
2014 2.4%
2013 1.5%
2012 2.3%
2011 1.6%

GDP Growth Rate Trump 2017

2017 2.3%

1st Qtr 1.2%
2nd Qtr 3.1%
3rd Qtr 3.2%
4th Qtr 2.6%

Since Trump didn't take office until the end of January, the 1st quarter would seem to be more a carryover of Obama's policies than Trump's policies. In any case, there would be a lag in the economy adjusting to a new President in charge. But it looks so far like once Trump was in charge and started to progress a pro growth agenda, the economy perked up considerably.

As I said above, presidents have virtually no effect on the economy.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2018-January-26, 21:56, said:

As I said above, presidents have virtually no effect on the economy.

I find that patently absurd. Ask the people receiving bonuses as a result of the Trump Tax Cut/Reform legislation. Ask the Obamacare people/insurance companies after the individual mandate was repealed. Ask all of the companies that have announced investment/repatriation plans based on the new tax laws.

Then ask "would Obama have pushed for and passed such tax legislation?" "Would Hillary have pushed for and passed such tax legislation?" I think not. Elections have consequences.

[rmnka447]

ldrews, on 2018-January-26, 22:23, said:

I find that patently absurd. Ask the people receiving bonuses as a result of the Trump Tax Cut/Reform legislation. Ask the Obamacare people/insurance companies after the individual mandate was repealed. Ask all of the companies that have announced investment/repatriation plans based on the new tax laws.

Then ask "would Obama have pushed for and passed such tax legislation?" "Would Hillary have pushed for and passed such tax legislation?" I think not. Elections have consequences.

Of course, they wouldn't. They believe that government is the source of business success and profits, not the entrepreneurs/management/employees. They've stated that several times.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama pursued distinctly anti-business policies that stunted the economy. So he got what he sowed insipid economic growth, stagnant wages, and jobs lost overseas. Despite progressive efforts to put lipstick on the economy's performance to make it look better, everyday people recognized it for what it was, ugly.

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2018-January-26, 21:56, said:

As I said above, presidents have virtually no effect on the economy.

You must have difficulty looking at real data then. If you will notice, the economy turned around in the last 3 quarters after President Trump took over. I not sure how they'd aggregate it for that period, but a simple average of the quarterly growth rates would be about 3%.

So it looks to me like your OPINION is wrong.

[cherdano]

LOL

[PassedOut]

ldrews, on 2018-January-26, 22:23, said:

Then ask "would Obama have pushed for and passed such tax legislation?" "Would Hillary have pushed for and passed such tax legislation?" I think not. Elections have consequences.

With a $20 trillion debt and full employment, that tax cut was fiscally irresponsible, so you are right -- no responsible individual would have proposed it nor voted for it. Nor supported it.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2018-January-26, 21:56, said:

As I said above, presidents have virtually no effect on the economy.

So if the economy crashes in 2019 you will not at all hold Donald trump responsible? You do not hold GWB at all responsible for what happened in 2008?

The economy grew well during the time Bill Clinton was president. I didn't look up the figures, but I remember it as growing well. My guess is that this was partly a result of Clinton policies, partly a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the latter being something Clinton had little or nothing to do with. And of course Congress was involved. Neither Congress nor the president can take all the blame/credit for what happens, nor should they be absolved of all blame/credit. There were some tax cuts in 2001. I imagine this effected the economy. Surely the events of 9/11 in 2001 also effected the economy. Both had an effect.

I would agree that praising Trump for the growth of the economy in 2017 is premature and simplistic. One year is only one year, and what happens in one year is in part the result of what had been done in previous years and part the result of forces beyond the control of the president. Also it is partly the result of current policies advocated by the current president. Thinking that presidents have virtually no effect on the economy seems wildly off the mark. If I thought that were true I would not worry nearly as much as I do over who is sitting in the Oval Office.

One year is one year. 1929 was a great year until it wan't. I am not such a pessimist that I am predicting catastrophe, but I don't think that our current rapid increase in the price of stocks will be maintained. Not that a rising DJIA helps the guy in the street all that much anyway.

Anyway, I think it matters who is president. For the economy and for other things as well. I am guessing that you actually agree with this.

[RedSpawn]

rmnka447, on 2018-January-26, 18:03, said:

It sure does when you try to make arguments based on isolated opinions, not facts.

Here are some real data to chew over.

GDP Growth Rate Obama years:

2016 1.5%
2015 2.6%
2014 2.4%
2013 1.5%
2012 2.3%
2011 1.6%

GDP Growth Rate Trump 2017

2017 2.3%

1st Qtr 1.2%
2nd Qtr 3.1%
3rd Qtr 3.2%
4th Qtr 2.6%

Since Trump didn't take office until the end of January, the 1st quarter would seem to be more a carryover of Obama's policies than Trump's policies. In any case, there would be a lag in the economy adjusting to a new President in charge. But it looks so far like once Trump was in charge and started to progress a pro growth agenda, the economy perked up considerably.

Your statistics are overlooking the fact that President Obama was handed an economy that was on the precipice of failure. In October 2007 - January 2009 -- Let the record show:

• Washington Mutual Bank failed (largest savings and thrift) and was acquired by Chase Bank in fire sale.
  
• Lehman Brothers with $639 billion in assets failed.
  
• The Bear Stearns Companies were purchased by JP Morgan Chase in fire sale.
  
• Indymac Bank failed and was put into FDIC receivorship. It was the 4th largest bank failure in U.S. history.
  
• Merrill Lynch was acquired by Bank of America to avoid bankruptcy.
  
• Wachovia Bank was acquired by Wells Fargo to avoid a ruinous bank failure.
  
• The FDIC fund was practically drained dry; the FDIC was wheeling and dealing with big banks to avoid having to finance another big bank failure to prevent its own insolvency.
  
• The U.S. Treasury guaranteed ALL money market funds from September 2008 to September 2009 to reduce the enormous amounts of capital flight occurring in the capital markets.
  
• AIG, the largest insurer of credit default swaps, was bailed out to avoid bankruptcy -- especially since $3.6 trillion of the money market fund industry was invested in AIG debt.
  
• Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed into federal conservatorship to further reduce market panic.
  
• Citibank was loaned billions of dollars by the federal government to avoid bank failure.

Exactly how many years should a President be allowed to get the economy back on track given THESE type of cataclysmic events occurring before his Presidency?

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-January-27, 07:44, said:

So if the economy crashes in 2019 you will not at all hold Donald trump responsible? You do not hold GWB at all responsible for what happened in 2008?

The economy grew well during the time Bill Clinton was president. I didn't look up the figures, but I remember it as growing well. My guess is that this was partly a result of Clinton policies, partly a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the latter being something Clinton had little or nothing to do with. And of course Congress was involved. Neither Congress nor the president can take all the blame/credit for what happens, nor should they be absolved of all blame/credit. There were some tax cuts in 2001. I imagine this effected the economy. Surely the events of 9/11 in 2001 also effected the economy. Both had an effect.

I would agree that praising Trump for the growth of the economy in 2017 is premature and simplistic. One year is only one year, and what happens in one year is in part the result of what had been done in previous years and part the result of forces beyond the control of the president. Also it is partly the result of current policies advocated by the current president. Thinking that presidents have virtually no effect on the economy seems wildly off the mark. If I thought that were true I would not worry nearly as much as I do over who is sitting in the Oval Office.

One year is one year. 1929 was a great year until it wan't. I am not such a pessimist that I am predicting catastrophe, but I don't think that our current rapid increase in the price of stocks will be maintained. Not that a rising DJIA helps the guy in the street all that much anyway.

Anyway, I think it matters who is president. For the economy and for other things as well. I am guessing that you actually agree with this.

No, I don't hold George Bush personally responsible for the Great Recession. That event was a cumulative effect of the actions of many presidents and many congresses, and both Republicans and Democrats were culpable. If you look at the previous great crash in 1929 you will see that was also an accumulation effect after years of bad policy and market faith. The affect of the president on the economy is like adding a rudder and sail to an iceberg - not much is going to happen to change course.

The US economy is not fickle and reactionary. It has its own rhythm and cycles unhinged from the immediacy of politics but will react to long-term policy, good and bad.

This is not to say policy cannot have a more immediate effect on things that are more reactionary - such as the stock market. There is little doubt that the stock market was pricing in business tax relief for the past year. There is a saying on Wall Street: buy the rumor; sell the fact. But the stock market is not the US economy.

It takes years to build a bubble - not long for the bubble to pop. Housing policies, bank rules, and non-enforcement of non-bank standards all contributed over many years to build a housing bubble - that the bubble popped when George Bush was in office was his and our bad luck. But it was bound to happen when the critical mass point was reached, and both Republicans and Democrats were complicit it allowing it to happen.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2018-January-27, 01:55, said:

Of course, they wouldn't. They believe that government is the source of business success and profits, not the entrepreneurs/management/employees. They've stated that several times.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama pursued distinctly anti-business policies that stunted the economy. So he got what he sowed insipid economic growth, stagnant wages, and jobs lost overseas. Despite progressive efforts to put lipstick on the economy's performance to make it look better, everyday people recognized it for what it was, ugly.

Would you please provide a quote where Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton said that government is the source of business profits?

What is your explanation of the Great Recession? If you will remember, President Obama was inaugurated in January, 2009. What did he inherit?

Quote

Following the bursting of the housing bubble in mid-2007, and the housing market correction and subprime mortgage crisis the following year, the United States entered a severe recession.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) dates the beginning of the recession as December 2007. According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and GDP contracted by 5.1%, making the Great Recession the worst since the Great Depression. Unemployment rose from 4.7% in November 2007 to peak at 10% in October 2009.[1]

And the severity of the event was mirrored by the recovery:

Quote

The bottom, or trough, was reached in the second quarter of 2009 (marking the technical end of the recession, defined as at least two consecutive quarters of declining GDP).[2] The NBER, dating by month, points to June 2009 as the final month of the recession.

The recovery after the 2009 trough was weak and both GDP and job growth erratic and uneven. A solid, strong pace of job growth was not seen until 2011.[3] By August 2015, the unemployment rate was 5.1%,[4] below the historical average of 5.6% but still barely above the 5% when the recession started in December 2007, with roughly 12,639,000 jobs added since the Great Recession's payroll trough in February 2010.[5] American household net worth fell from a pre-recession peak of $68 trillion in Q3 2007 to $55 trillion by Q1 2009,[6] while real median household income fell from $56,436 in 2007 to $51,758 by 2012.[7] The poverty rate increased from 2006 to 2010, reaching a peak of 15%, and held there through 2012 before dropping to 14.5% in 2013.[8]

It seems many people who were not financially active at that time do not understand how close the U.S. came to a reliving of the Great Depression, but even with rapid response from the Federal Reserve and the stimulus package the results were marginal - that says more about the severity of the event than offering a glimpse at blame. A look at the history of the U.S. economy in the years following 1929 is a better gauge of how well the US responded to the Great Recession. In that, I can help:

Quote

In the U.S., recovery began in early 1933, but the U.S. did not return to 1929 GNP for over a decade and still had an unemployment rate of about 15% in 1940, albeit down from the high of 25% in 1933

Free markets are great when they are bounded by rules that are: 1) good for society as a whole, 2) non-penal to normal-business growth and innovation, and 3) enforced. The Great Recession is another classic example of what happens to free markets when government policy abandons these ideas.

Free markets are not the answer; government is not the answer. Sounds to me like a compromise might be best.