Supreme Court Decisions

NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm praying that his syphillis incapacitates him in short order. He's already in that crazy phase.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYCGOBEARS said:

I'm praying that his syphillis incapacitates him in short order. He's already in that crazy phase.


I guess we will know it is kicking in when he stocks the swimming pool at Mar a Largo with fish and spends all day there in his pajamas with a rod in his hand like Big Al.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

If Trump has dirt on Kennedy's son (which based on media reporting, is very believable) then it wouldn't be hard at all for Trump to force a retirement on Kennedy.

In the long view, a big lesson from this ordeal will be that white collar crimes have to be prosecuted. They used to be, but somewhere along the way we began glorifying CEO's and other white collar types and catering to them. That has only emboldened white collar criminals, such as the type that destroyed our economy a decade ago and are now criminally running the country.
For some time, the SEC and Justice have allowed corporations to pay large fines in order to avoid criminal prosecutions of executives. Great for executives, great for the government's pocket book, great for the prosecutor's reputation and lousy for shareholders.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You forgot to say lousy for America
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

You forgot to say lousy for America
Generally yes, and always yes when it comes to financial companies. Some companies have faced shakedowns for being on the wrong side politically, especially by state governments.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?





wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

This is true. She ignored the Rust Belt, and they went for Trump...even if he had Russkie help.

It's like Sonny Dykes not playing D..you're giving it away and will have limited success if you don't cover major components.

Yes, HRC was a flawed candidate, a corporate Dem. But she would have made a fair better POTUS. We woudln't be in the current clusterfcck if she were in. But that's an IF.
The two tribe world of US voters, the other tribe just see's the strong economy, a wave of immigrants overwhelming the US taking jobs and dropping wages, and someone finally standing up to those other countries around the world. Our dog group marched in two local July 4 parades yesterday, one in WLA and one in Orange County, where everyone now seems to dress their young kids in shirts that say things like "United States means United Families", "Build the Wall", " We preach tolerance" and "Laws matter" among others. Its nice to see young children now being used as political props. (Sarcasm). You can probably guess at which parade we saw which shirt.

In any event, a good portion of the country see's the Obama years as a cluster****. BTW, having been to Europe recently, they don't exactly see the world as one either. Example one maybe that Merkel is probably a goner due to the immigrant issue and example 2 probably is Italy (and we were in the North, where they want Trump like change, especially on the immigration issue). These corporate politicians like Clinton or say Romney in the GOP (or Merkel and the outgoing Italian government for that matter) that you speak of as flawed, do provide some level of stability, even if one can disagree with them on specific issues. Italy now has leaders without any political or administrative service experience (somewhat analogous the Trump senior leadership) so I guess we shall see what happens.
kjkbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank you WIAF for an even handed look at what is going on in the west.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree Clinton and Romney types provide stability...but the question is for who and at what expense. Once the SCOTUS said corporations are individuals and people, and the mortgage derivatives scandal happened...I believe it's fair to question the stability, and for who, and if that kind of stability is sustainable because it sure doesn't look like it. Lucky for the bankers, Obama trusted his Ivy League buds on giving them a pass. They got away scot free. I understand his logic, it was a waste of time and the priority was economic recovery. The fall out however is still coming.

Yeah...stability, Obama brought it, but I guess he doesn't count. The conversatives hated him mostly because of race. That's much of the impetus behind Trump's roll backs...that and destroying government. Stability except you know...white supremacy.

Trump is the natural extension of the corporate angle gone amok, as in we want everything to tilt further right. A BUSSINESS MAN IS RUNNING COUNTRY, as so many conservatives wanted. I believe the coming trade war with China, Canada and Europe will sour many people. It is going to hurt like a motherfccker.

As for OC, I was born in Hoag, raised down there and went to school with John Wayne's grandchildren. I have a good idea what's going on down there. OC is changing...it's going to turn blue. What will flip it is Trump crapping on the economy, and that process has begun in earnest. South county should consider joining SD, but it might not matter. What is really ironic of course is OC is a traditional Cold War GOP base...and Trump is sucking off the Russkies. It will be interesting to see how that plays when Mueller drops the hammer.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

MSNBC and CNN fact-check. That right there is a big deal. Yes both have an editorial bends (like Fox) but using fact-checking is a big step in transparency and an on-the-level discussion. If you use facts, a debate or conversation has value. If you're not fact-checking and simply making stuff up, there is no value except to propagandist.
or you work for the Chronicle.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

I agree Clinton and Romney types provide stability...but the question is for who and at what expense. Once the SCOTUS said corporations are individuals and people, and the mortgage derivatives scandal happened...I believe it's fair to question the stability, and for who, and if that kind of stability is sustainable because it sure doesn't look like it. Lucky for the bankers, Obama trusted his Ivy League buds on giving them a pass. They got away scot free. I understand his logic, it was a waste of time and the priority was economic recovery. The fall out however is still coming.

Yeah...stability, Obama brought it, but I guess he doesn't count. The conversatives hated him mostly because of race. That's much of the impetus behind Trump's roll backs...that and destroying government. Stability except you know...white supremacy.

Trump is the natural extension of the corporate angle gone amok, as in we want everything to tilt further right. A BUSSINESS MAN IS RUNNING COUNTRY, as so many conservatives wanted. I believe the coming trade war with China, Canada and Europe will sour many people. It is going to hurt like a motherfccker.

As for OC, I was born in Hoag, raised down there and went to school with John Wayne's grandchildren. I have a good idea what's going on down there. OC is changing...it's going to turn blue. What will flip it is Trump crapping on the economy, and that process has begun in earnest. South county should consider joining SD, but it might not matter. What is really ironic of course is OC is a traditional Cold War GOP base...and Trump is sucking off the Russkies. It will be interesting to see how that plays when Mueller drops the hammer.
I'm not sure I understand all this, but the point I tied to make is that this country is now been reduced the level of Italian politics and remain deeply divided. Obama was stifled (frustrated?) by checks and balances, and while IMO he brought some level of international stability by simply withdrawing or capitulation (a good read is Obama's aide's book "The World as It Is") to international limitations, on domestic affairs, he basically overturned numerous executive policies or took on new initiatives that failed legislatively, and I suspect will ultimately tank. Now we have someone who sees no boundaries on either the international or domestic front. So yes, I will take stability. I guess the last businessman to run the country was Jimmy Carter. Enough said. Good luck to the Italians.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

This is true. She ignored the Rust Belt, and they went for Trump...even if he had Russkie help.

It's like Sonny Dykes not playing D..you're giving it away and will have limited success if you don't cover major components.

Yes, HRC was a flawed candidate, a corporate Dem. But she would have made a fair better POTUS. We woudln't be in the current clusterfcck if she were in. But that's an IF.
The two tribe world of US voters, the other tribe just see's the strong economy, a wave of immigrants overwhelming the US taking jobs and dropping wages, and someone finally standing up to those other countries around the world.
Well, they don't see well then. The economy is the same as under Obama's 2nd term except with increasing deficits, immigrant levels are very low historically and the business complaint is of a worker shortage, and Trump is going around saluting North Korean generals and cozying up to Putin and every other two-bit dictator around the world.

But I'm glad you are enjoying your tax cuts and don't have to see that woman on tv when you look up Presidential news, wiaf
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?

B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Clinton's ability to understand complex topics and to read over a page of single-spaced text is way overrated. She would have divided the nation, while degrading our leadership position internationally. Also, the corruption, lies, and utter incompetence would have eventually gotten to me. No thanks, I'll take Trump.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:





That would have taken days.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

The two tribe world of US voters, the other tribe just see's the strong economy, a wave of immigrants overwhelming the US taking jobs and dropping wages, and someone finally standing up to those other countries around the world.
Well, they don't see well then. The economy is the same as under Obama's 2nd term except with increasing deficits, immigrant levels are very low historically and the business complaint is of a worker shortage, and Trump is going around saluting North Korean generals and cozying up to Putin and every other two-bit dictator around the world.

But I'm glad you are enjoying your tax cuts and don't have to see that woman on tv when you look up Presidential news, wiaf
We see the world vastly different, but then again, I have to take on personal risk in what I do.

You failed to visualize the failure of Clinton's diplomatic efforts and failed analysis, which left Obama in the position of diplomatic policy by missile (reflecting Clinton's hawkishness) and then after she left with simply "do no harm" as Obama aides now bemoan publicly. You seem to conveniently forget that Clinton's primary appeal was inevitability and that she will be our first woman president. Her policies were intentionally vague, and her primary focus seems on indentity politics. Symbols aside, the more important question rests with how her economic policies would affect the lives of business and the working, and other thant a tax increase she could never get though Congress, she had nothing specific to offer. You forget she was as divisive and unpopular as Trump, even in her own party, and it certainly left those of us conservative on business matters, but socially liberal, with no real choice. I went with my business view, thinking she would be absent on the economy, and from that sense I was probably correct. She wasn't one for compromise and we likely would still be in sequester.

As for the economy, I could not disagree more. Tax cuts and agreed upon spending increases with Democrats have stimulated the economy, so much so that FED is worried about the economy being overheated. The malaise of the Obama economy is gone, capital has returned to the market, wages are starting to rise, rents are rising, and shortages are starting to appear. I look forward to enjoying my tax cuts (when you get rents, you don't see less withholding) and I have developed and spent, creating jobs.

What I didn't foresee is a President who seems off the rails. I assumed, incorrectly, that a guy who ran a large business would know how to handle employees and avoid massive turnover, and would hire somebody to handle foreign affairs. Wrong on both accounts. (BTW, I agree with the overtures to North Korea). I think Clinton would have made a better administrator than Trump, and in retrospect, would have been a better manager as President. Go figure.

I voted in California, so while in your self-rightousness, you constantly and bitterly blame me for Trump, my vote didn't matter.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The new Italian political model is on the GOP...and Russia.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The tax cut was good for corporations and shareholders and that's it.

Tax cut sparks record-setting $178 billion buyback boom

As for NOT seeing how a businessman can't run a country, you seem to lack the understanding that government is NOT a business and running government like one is a good way to start a DEPRESSION, because that's what's coming from Trump's policy.

Right now Trump is running the USA just like a business and it shows. Did you see what happened in Korea? He set that up like a real estate deal and the Koreans PLAYED HIM LIKE A FIDDLE because government and international diplomacy is more complicated than selling crap or doing business.

The trade war Trump started is even crazier. That's how NYC real estate moguls think...tit for tat, baseline aggressive business...not suitable for international trade, which takes finesse and diplomacy...both things Trump lacks in spades.

dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

The two tribe world of US voters, the other tribe just see's the strong economy, a wave of immigrants overwhelming the US taking jobs and dropping wages, and someone finally standing up to those other countries around the world.
Well, they don't see well then. The economy is the same as under Obama's 2nd term except with increasing deficits, immigrant levels are very low historically and the business complaint is of a worker shortage, and Trump is going around saluting North Korean generals and cozying up to Putin and every other two-bit dictator around the world.

But I'm glad you are enjoying your tax cuts and don't have to see that woman on tv when you look up Presidential news, wiaf
We see the world vastly different, but then again, I have to take on personal risk in what I do.

You failed to visualize the failure of Clinton's diplomatic efforts and failed analysis, which left Obama in the position of diplomatic policy by missile (reflecting Clinton's hawkishness) and then after she left with simply "do no harm" as Obama aides now bemoan publicly. You seem to conveniently forget that Clinton's primary appeal was inevitability and that she will be our first woman president. Her policies were intentionally vague, and her primary focus seems on indentity politics. Symbols aside, the more important question rests with how her economic policies would affect the lives of business and the working, and other thant a tax increase she could never get though Congress, she had nothing specific to offer. You forget she was as divisive and unpopular as Trump, even in her own party, and it certainly left those of us conservative on business matters, but socially liberal, with no real choice. I went with my business view, thinking she would be absent on the economy, and from that sense I was probably correct. She wasn't one for compromise and we likely would still be in sequester.

As for the economy, I could not disagree more. Tax cuts and agreed upon spending increases with Democrats have stimulated the economy, so much so that FED is worried about the economy being overheated. The malaise of the Obama economy is gone, capital has returned to the market, wages are starting to rise, rents are rising, and shortages are starting to appear. I look forward to enjoying my tax cuts (when you get rents, you don't see less withholding) and I have developed and spent, creating jobs.

What I didn't foresee is a President who seems off the rails. I assumed, incorrectly, that a guy who ran a large business would know how to handle employees and avoid massive turnover, and would hire somebody to handle foreign affairs. Wrong on both accounts. (BTW, I agree with the overtures to North Korea). I think Clinton would have made a better administrator than Trump, and in retrospect, would have been a better manager as President. Go figure.

I voted in California, so while in your self-rightousness, you constantly and bitterly blame me for Trump, my vote didn't matter.

In my view, nobody who voted for Trump gets a pass. Certainly not a person like you, who is viewed by many as a leader. Your vote is more important than just one vote - and it went towards the person who represents base vulgarity and a rejection of the norms of democracy, which was plain to see during the election. You don't get a pass for being in California.

Trump's entire campaign was based on identity politics. It's sad you could not see that. Us against them - always and on racial, gender, and religious terms. We haven't seen anything like his level of identity politics in my lifetime (I was born after the Civil Rights movement). His Presidency is almost completely an identity politics Presidency. Sad.

Hillary's campaign was filled with policy proposals. You are unaware of them because the media finds them boring and you must be uninterested. Her campaign was very substantive, if uncovered by the press. You and I can agree to disagree on Hillary's foreign policy, but at least Hillary had the missiles pointed in the right direction. We are now engaged in a war of words with the likes of Canada and the Presidency is at odds with our Intelligence Community, in deference to Putin.

As for the economy, you appear to be blinded by your own well being. The economy is the same as Obama's 2nd term based on all the metrics. Even the jobs report, illegally hyped by Trump early last month, was below the average of Obama's 2nd term. There are only three differences between the Trump economy and Obama's 2nd term:
1 - The asset markets and tax changes are making rich folks like you richer - this is temporary
2 - The media completely flipped its economy reporting once Trump became President, likely because most of them are rich too.
3 - The deficits are skyrocketing now

btw, the sequester was the compromise, but I'm glad to see you on record advocating more government spending. That is certainly what the Republicans always give us.

okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

The two tribe world of US voters, the other tribe just see's the strong economy, a wave of immigrants overwhelming the US taking jobs and dropping wages, and someone finally standing up to those other countries around the world.
Well, they don't see well then. The economy is the same as under Obama's 2nd term except with increasing deficits, immigrant levels are very low historically and the business complaint is of a worker shortage, and Trump is going around saluting North Korean generals and cozying up to Putin and every other two-bit dictator around the world.

But I'm glad you are enjoying your tax cuts and don't have to see that woman on tv when you look up Presidential news, wiaf
We see the world vastly different, but then again, I have to take on personal risk in what I do.

You failed to visualize the failure of Clinton's diplomatic efforts and failed analysis, which left Obama in the position of diplomatic policy by missile (reflecting Clinton's hawkishness) and then after she left with simply "do no harm" as Obama aides now bemoan publicly. You seem to conveniently forget that Clinton's primary appeal was inevitability and that she will be our first woman president. Her policies were intentionally vague, and her primary focus seems on indentity politics. Symbols aside, the more important question rests with how her economic policies would affect the lives of business and the working, and other thant a tax increase she could never get though Congress, she had nothing specific to offer. You forget she was as divisive and unpopular as Trump, even in her own party, and it certainly left those of us conservative on business matters, but socially liberal, with no real choice. I went with my business view, thinking she would be absent on the economy, and from that sense I was probably correct. She wasn't one for compromise and we likely would still be in sequester.

As for the economy, I could not disagree more. Tax cuts and agreed upon spending increases with Democrats have stimulated the economy, so much so that FED is worried about the economy being overheated. The malaise of the Obama economy is gone, capital has returned to the market, wages are starting to rise, rents are rising, and shortages are starting to appear. I look forward to enjoying my tax cuts (when you get rents, you don't see less withholding) and I have developed and spent, creating jobs.

What I didn't foresee is a President who seems off the rails. I assumed, incorrectly, that a guy who ran a large business would know how to handle employees and avoid massive turnover, and would hire somebody to handle foreign affairs. Wrong on both accounts. (BTW, I agree with the overtures to North Korea). I think Clinton would have made a better administrator than Trump, and in retrospect, would have been a better manager as President. Go figure.

I voted in California, so while in your self-rightousness, you constantly and bitterly blame me for Trump, my vote didn't matter.



Is Trump really a large business, or just Trump licensing out his name?

Was he really a good businessman, or just a BSer who talked his way into looking successful?

Is he actually a billionaire?!?!

Trump's ability is to be 100% successful...in his own mind. Anything negative about him is somebody else's fault. He is flawless. And having that never-failing mindset made him be able to "build up" this empire. And so far, it's working for his presidency.

My impression is the guy knew how to build himself up through words and make him seem like a big-time businessman, when he was a pretty dismal failure. That bravado resulted in him being too big to fail. And on and on it went. The same goes as president. He is too big to fail. So Republicans are protecting him as much as possible.


Another problem is that people assume that being a good businessman means you're a good manager and good at government.


These stories explain why that's wrong:

https://www.vox.com/2017/5/18/15653808/donald-trump-james-comey-michael-flynn-business

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/262749-history-shows-businessmen-make-bad-presidents





Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The major difference between Trump and Obama foreign policy is that our current foreign policy is run out of Tel Aviv. There's been a massive tilt to Israel and Saudi Arabia and move away from engagement with Iran and towards confrontation. War clouds are gathering.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

The major difference between Trump and Obama foreign policy is that our current foreign policy is run out of Tel Aviv. There's been a massive tilt to Israel and Saudi Arabia and move away from engagement with Iran and towards confrontation. War clouds are gathering.
Across the globe we are creating divisions with our democratic allies and cozying up to dictators. Some of you have to get out of your left-right modal thinking and take a look at what's going on.

Think about the steps that go into play for turning a country from one in which voters choose their leaders into one from which leaders choose the voters. Why would our President want to befriend the latter and anger the former?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:



As for the economy, I could not disagree more. Tax cuts and agreed upon spending increases with Democrats have stimulated the economy, so much so that FED is worried about the economy being overheated. The malaise of the Obama economy is gone, capital has returned to the market, wages are starting to rise, rents are rising, and shortages are starting to appear. I look forward to enjoying my tax cuts (when you get rents, you don't see less withholding) and I have developed and spent, creating jobs.


The malaise of the Obama economy was related to the republican insistence on not providing sufficient stimulation. Now that we don't really need it but the republicans can take credit for it, they are pumping in additional stimulus (as they always do) in a last-ditch move by baby boomers to supercharge their retirement earnings. Of course all of this was entirely predictable but the idea that Trump should get credit for doing what Obama wanted to do but Republicans in congress forbid, is pure sophistry. Of course, sophistry is just a euphemism for how Trump and his cronies are defending what he's doing to this country.

I have zero doubt in my mind that we would be in better economic shape if Hillary had won (although that depends on which direction the house and senate went in that fictional narrative) depending on how you define the "we." It's entirely possible that in the short term, Trump and his policies have benefited the 0.1% but it's still early and I believe that the 0.1% will be joining the 99.1% by the end of Trump's term in cursing this economy. The difference, of course, will be that a large segment of the 99.1% will blame it on Obama.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Obama was a disaster. Let the bankers go free with no prosecutions, no investigation into the Iraq War, adopt a Republican health care plan and call it reform, nothing on immigration, nothing on tax reform, puny stimulus negotiated with Republicans, expansion of the security state. He was a sheep in sheep's clothing. He spent the first year "reaching across the aisle" but mostly shaking hands with his own overflated imaginary self.

Clinton with a Republican Congress would be another disaster, more going sideways while touting progress because we've increased the number of trans gender marines by 3%. She'd also be a foreign policy disaster having never met a war she didnt like. And it's likely she'd be a one term President after 12 years of Democrats, which means another four years of misery

The good news is we've gotten rid of Obama and Clinton and Bushes and in four years we may get a real reformer not another corporate *****.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Obama was a disaster. Let the bankers go free with no prosecutions, no investigation into the Iraq War, adopt a Republican health care plan and call it reform, nothing on immigration, nothing on tax reform, puny stimulus negotiated with Republicans, expansion of the security state. He was a sheep in sheep's clothing. He spent the first year "reaching across the aisle" but mostly shaking hands with his own overflated imaginary self.

Clinton with a Republican Congress would be another disaster, more going sideways while touting progress because we've increased the number of trans gender marines by 3%. She'd also be a foreign policy disaster having never met a war she didnt like. And it's likely she'd be a one term President after 12 years of Democrats, which means another four years of misery

The good news is we've gotten rid of Obama and Clinton and Bushes and in four years we may get a real reformer not another corporate *****.

What would you differently? Seriously. The nation was a disaster when Obama took office, and he was trying to get healthcare done as his signature legislation. Otherwise, it would never be done.

How many "high concept" things could he juggle early on in his presidency?

He only had total control of Congress for like *4 months* of his entire presidency -- four months that included a winter break.

So how much could he have really done with Dems ramming sh*t down the republicans throat?

How effective would an Iraq war investigation be into the previous administration, one that would probably span years?

You have to remember that Obama was overly scrutinized.

Everything he said and did was denounced by the Republicans. They took every opportunity to get a shot at him, from him being on the golf course, to the tan suit.

They took every opportunity to paint him as a moron and a weakling.


Or the polite way of saying it, "in over his head."

You want Obama to be this magical person who could get sh*t done. "LBJ did it, why can't Obama!!?!?!!?"

The reality is that Obama had to work with Republicans. They had the power for 92 of 96 months of his presidency.

And they were determined to make Obama look as bad as possible.

I know it's unfair, especially when you're seeing Trump basically do everything terrible and get a pass.

Even if Obama wanted to play dirty. He'd have to deal with Dems who don't play that way, especially red state "Blue Dog" Dems.

The problem is that Republicans are allowed to be hypocrites. They thrive on it.

They are allowed to denounce "political correctness" while complaining about "incivility."

They are allowed to complain about "snowflakes," while thriving on victimization. That's why they picked as their leader the ultimate "victim," Donald Trump.

It's a double standard. It sucks. But Dems aren't allowed to play dirty. The Republicans won't let them. The media, especially, won't let them. Progressives won't let him. Democrats won't let him.

I remember the incident early on in the Obama presidency, when Somali pirates took that ship hostage, which became a Tom Cruise movie. Looking back, it was perfectly handled, everything went right. And yes, Obama had a role in authorizing the use of force. But for several days, you had Fox News hammering at him, calling him a weakling, especially Newt Gingrich. Calling him pro-pirates.

Trump is making the fantasy that you can do whatever you want as president a reality and do just about everything your base wants. With little or no pushback.

But that wasn't going to happen for Obama, even if he tried.





kjkbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Most of your comments are fair. But you lifted the "total control of Congress" bit without fairly explaining what "total control" meant in your example. Obama had both Senate and the House for more than a year, closer to two years. Obama only had the house and 60 senators for about 4 months. Neither Trump nor Bush II ever had that much control, not even for 60 seconds.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Huh? WHAT? Trump has majorities in both houses and the SCOTUS. That's FULL CONTROL and yet he can't pass any legislation.

Trump is both incompetent and unqualified plus he has hired a bunch of grifters, liars and cheats. (See Pruitt).

Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Your notion is a common one- that somehow he was this Mulatto Jesus who was crucified by the Republicans. But he campaigned on all this "reach across the aisle and get things done" bulls$it. He spent a year negotiating with himself.(Was he naive, stupid or both?)

His response to the banking crisis was "we're all in this together." No, we're not. One very small group were criminals the rest of us victims. He did nothing. He caved to his supporters

He removed the public option from health care and essentially let industry write it. And he was head of a Democratic Party that lost 1000 seats nationwide. When you pass a public benefit you should get a bunch of new voters for a generation, not lose them. What does that tell you about his leadership and the legislation?

His entire legacy was written with disappearing ink-a cocked up health care bill on its last legs, a silly climate change initiative, wars and drones that never end, the "deporter in chief."

He was elected in a wave election like Trump but he was a waste of time-mostly because of an identity crisis. His fecklessness however did give birth to two movements- the Tea Party and OWS- who, although maligned-actually planted the seeds of change that brought us Trump and Sanders and led our politics to new places. So, that's good
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

The tax cut was good for corporations and shareholders and that's it.

Tax cut sparks record-setting $178 billion buyback boom

As for NOT seeing how a businessman can't run a country, you seem to lack the understanding that government is NOT a business and running government like one is a good way to start a DEPRESSION, because that's what's coming from Trump's policy.

Right now Trump is running the USA just like a business and it shows. Did you see what happened in Korea? He set that up like a real estate deal and the Koreans PLAYED HIM LIKE A FIDDLE because government and international diplomacy is more complicated than selling crap or doing business.

The trade war Trump started is even crazier. That's how NYC real estate moguls think...tit for tat, baseline aggressive business...not suitable for international trade, which takes finesse and diplomacy...both things Trump lacks in spades.


Your prior post was a good laugh.

So is the first couple lines from this post. A good portion of the tax benefits went to individual and flow through entities, not simple those evil corporations. In any event, the concern that tax breaks dare to go to business, seems to be a disconnect as to who besides government actually employees people and seeks to grow through investment. On the investment side you must actually get cash from tax breaks or invest existing capital based on future tax breaks (i.e., with the tax breaks, certain projects (or whatever the company does to grow) now generate a sufficient after-tax ROI, and then it takes you time to implement growth strategies. Lot's of time. On the employment side there are various industries reporting a tight job market and delays in getting work done. Real estate is one example I can give you from personal experience.

But wait, there is a link to an article that says corporations sitting on cash made distributions to shareholder in the first quarter that the tax cuts were in effect, as suggesting the bounty from the tax law is going to evil shareholders (you know those pesky employee funds for starters). I'm sure the few accountants on the board are laughing in stiches. So these corporations actually don't make smaller quarterly estimated tax payments until April 17 (you know, well after the first quarter). Arguably one-fourth of the annual cash savings they would see from the tax cuts. Of course, the other problem is the corporations referenced in the articles likely were making higher distributions on dividend dates, which in the first quarter typically are in January or early February, based on fourth quarter results, and decisions made at December or early January board meeting. To put this another way, cash distributions in the first quarter where from companies sitting on cash mostly generated in 2017 or earlier. I realize your citing a business-oriented magazine, but that doesn't mean the author knows what they are talking about.

I don't even no where to begin on the rest of the post, other than to say,(1) the federal government is not bing run like a business presently and (2) imposing tariffs seems like a huge gamble.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Anarchistbear said:

The major difference between Trump and Obama foreign policy is that our current foreign policy is run out of Tel Aviv. There's been a massive tilt to Israel and Saudi Arabia and move away from engagement with Iran and towards confrontation. War clouds are gathering.
Across the globe we are creating divisions with our democratic allies and cozying up to dictators. Some of you have to get out of your left-right modal thinking and take a look at what's going on.

Think about the steps that go into play for turning a country from one in which voters choose their leaders into one from which leaders choose the voters. Why would our President want to befriend the latter and anger the former?
You do ask a legitimate question. I suppose Trump would argue that in Korea we are trying to disarm an erratic nuclear country (with irony, sorta like Iran), and that are friends were trying to take advantage of us. I'm giving you the argument, not support for the argument. The way our allies have even handed defies logic. I get trying to befriend North Korea.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:







I don't even no where to begin on the rest of the post, other than to say,(1) the federal government is not bing run like a business presently and (2) imposing tariffs seems like a huge gamble.
Gamble? HAHAHAHA...I guess you're not much into history, which is a shame for a Cal grad. But I get it, your privilege and well being gets in the way or rationale thought. You know, because the last time the US imposed those kinds of protectionist tariffs, it resulted in the Great Depression. Given how much tech depends on imports, it's going to be extra devastating to California if this goes full bore. Smartphones will go from $600 to $2,000. It's also going to hurt the auto industry and farmers. But maybe that's Trump's plan to kill off the economy and help Puitin.

On that note, =seriously what is the possible benefits of the tariffs trump is imposing...that makes tariffs merely a gamble? I'm not against tariffs per se but sabotaging trade agreements without warning or much reason is the height of incompetence and stupidity...unless the point is crippling the U.S. and global economy. Then it's Putin.




Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:


But wait, there is a link to an article that says corporations sitting on cash made distributions to shareholder in the first quarter that the tax cuts were in effect, as suggesting the bounty from the tax law is going to evil shareholders (you know those pesky employee funds for starters).


I believe something close to 40% of the benefit of the corporate tax cuts went to foreigners by virtue of their ownership in US corporations. So effectively the tax cut was in part a transfer of wealth from Americans to foreigners.

Is that what Trump meant when he said MAGA?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MAGA = Mueller Ain't Going Away
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is in response to various posts, as the token non-lefty.

Thought Okay's response defending Obama's lack of initiative against the bigger lefty was just precious. You know, the Obama that could have rammed anything through Congress with his Senate supermajority and House control, and all we got was an incomplete health care system and some stimulus, a good portion of which was never built. Down in SoCal, we are still waiting for that signature $7 Billion "shovel ready" public safety system project to break ground, along with countless other shovel ready projects on the rocks since 2009. Oh the challenges implicit in large, complex, expensive projects centrally planned from Washington, D.C. It's a good thing that Trumps massive capital projects bill was DOA. We would have had large, complex, expensive projects centrally planned in Moscow.

But another posting suggesting that the GOP didn't allow the stimulus is revisionist history. The Obama administration then stumbled in rapidly circulating stimulus funds back into the economy. Per all reports, 12 months after the bills passage, and despite promise of shovel ready projects, only 24% of the authorized stimulus funds had been spend, and 61 percent of that went go to low-impact income transfers; only 39 percent is for high-impact spending on highways, mass transit, energy efficiency, et al. The problem was Obama's $787 billion stimulus package was a consortium of thousands of federal tax reductions of $288 Billion(mostly aimed at helping business, not individuals), and expenditures on infrastructure, education, health care, energy and other projects.

Dozens of respected economists, including Paul Krugman, told the White House that an effective stimulus must be at least $2 trillion and aimed more at net infrastructure spending, in order to replace the drop in consumer and governmental spending, and that the existing stimulus was ineffective. In July 2009, Obama dismissed a second stimulus in a weekly radio address, saying the first stimulus needed more time to work.

Then in September 2010, Obama, facing mounting pressure, offered a $100 billion tax decrease and a $50 Billion infrastructure spending (mostly for transportation) known as the "Son of Stimulus", with the recovery being rather weak for such a severe recession. The legislation faced a skeptical Congress, and was DOA. The GOP basically dismissed the SOS as more failed policy, and many Dems facing reelection in red states, became budget hawks and argued SOS was adding too much to an already exploding deficit. After the mid-term results, Obama never made an attempt to try another stimulus package.

The other question is did the stimulus work? So you know my biases, I have degrees from Keynsian economics schools, and several clients were large state agencies. There is a consensus that it didn't have a significant impact because money wasn't spent timely or still has not been spent, the tax breaks were often too targeted and not used, and importantly, the large stimulus grants sent to state and local governments for infrastructure spending were mainly used to reduce borrowing and thus did not result in an increase in net purchases; that is, money being fungible, they local governments, then drowning in debt, spent the money on the stimulus projects, and eliminated other projects to reduce debt (yes, this applies to California).

Keynesian economists say the take away should not be the stimulus failed, but should have been bigger and better designed. One of the biggest problems Paul Krugman (March 12, 2012 paper) has been highlighting, was the decline in state and local spending and employment was preventable. Getting the design of the stimulus right could have prevented that. The other take away is the stimulus had some positive impact, given that the economy at least stabilized. As someone in real estate, and who represented government agencies, I have seen first hand the positive impact of bona-fide infrastructure spending.



Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here's a hint: Obama is gone. It's all on Dotard, the GOP and the Russkies.

It's a real shame the GOP have gone party over country...but I suppose that's what traitors do.
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.