Supreme Court Decisions

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

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.


Anger will get you no where. Right now job growth rate at the same time out form starting office is about the same, but considering the low Obama started with, I'm rather unimpressed by Obama's record. Wages are slightly higher under Trump. Increase in economic growth is somewhat better under Obama, but again, he was going from the bottom. The stock market growth is about the same depending on what day you look at. What is a huge difference is capital investment is way up under Trump, particularly new orders. There is a reason number 2 has happened and its not you conspiracy theory of the rich media elites.

Deficits sky rocketed under Obama and continue on the same arch under Trump. I expect them to get bigger. We will see if number one is correct. I hope your right - with the risk goes the reward.

I don't even understand Trump's foreign policy in order to critique it.

Those of us who were tasked to reading and reporting on Clinton's tax policy papers found them wonting in substance. Empowering women and other catch phrases are not policy. FWIW, Trump's had much more in the way of specifics and rather unbelievable assumptions on growth.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As for Clinton versus Trump: My speculation is with Clinton, the economy would be back in the doldrums, there would be legislative grid lock and we might be at war. We would also have a President that acted Presidential, and at least an understandable foreign policy. Best I can say is I had to vote between two flawed candidates. I went with my pocketbook.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

As for Clinton versus Trump: My speculation is with Clinton, the economy would be back in the doldrums, there would be legislative grid lock and we might be at war. We would also have a President that acted Presidential, and at least an understandable foreign policy. Best I can say is I had to vote between two flawed candidates. I went with my pocketbook.


Clinton would have been impeached on false grounds by the Republicans. Anyone who watches tRump at a rally like the one in Montana yesterday and does not conclude that he is a disgrace to our country and a threat to the Republic lacks sophistication, is a traitor or a fanatic. It is also a shame that the people in the audience that were cheering his comments and yelling "Lock Her Up!" (How did that work out for General Flynn?) have any say in who leads our nation.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/06/politics/donald-trump-montana-speech/index.html

Finally, I believe it to be an objective truth that anyone who made the statements he made at that rally is a bad person.
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?
Sorry, but back on topic. The media says its a race between Kavanaugh and Barrett (who doesn't have a harvard or yale law degree). Supposedly backers of both our reaching out to the White House and the media.

Watch it be someone else like Kethledge.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nope, media now reporting its Barrett based on an article by Orrin Hatch using female pronouns to describe the nominee. Social conservatives win this round. Wonder if Collins and Murkowski go along for the ride?
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Nope, media now reporting its Barrett based on an article by Orrin Hatch using female pronouns to describe the nominee. Social conservatives win this round. Wonder if Collins and Murkowski go along for the ride?

Barrett makes sense. Trump can be a sexist and a sexual harasser, but he loves powerful women -- and he knows this would irritate the Dems.

Collins and Murkowski would've gone for the ride even if it was a male justice who released a rap song titled "F Roe V. Wade."

Barrett was born the same year as Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Eminem, Gwyneth Paltrow, Sofia Vergara, everybody in Green Day and The Rock.

She'll be Ruth Bader Ginsburg's age in 2057.

I'm actually shocked that Trump picked a justice who was so old.

It's also weird that it's been nearly 40 years since the Republicans picked a female.

Also weird that it's been nearly 40 years since a non-Ivy Leaguer was picked.

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

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.

Any accountants on the board would be laughing in stitches at you, wiaf. Businesses make decisions based on future projections. If they are flush with cash, and project more cash to come in, they won't wait for the cash to make the distribution - they'll go ahead and make it. The fact corporations are already so flush with cash is exactly why the tax cuts won't stimulate growth - businesses already have ample cash for good business opportunities.

Also, it's a waste of time for you to differentiate between corporations and flow through entities. The original point still holds - the beneficiaries are the wealthy whether they be wealthy owners of publicly traded stocks or wealthy owners of flow through entities or something else. Your obfuscation is needless and ineffective.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

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.
Trump gave in to North Korea and got nothing in return. He manufactured a crisis and then folded and tried to take credit for the end of a crisis. It was the stupidest foreign policy move I've ever seen. And it's not even hyperbole to say Kim Jong Un is like Hitler. That is who Trump is befriending and saluting their generals.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:

wifeisafurd said:

Nope, media now reporting its Barrett based on an article by Orrin Hatch using female pronouns to describe the nominee. Social conservatives win this round. Wonder if Collins and Murkowski go along for the ride?

Barrett makes sense. Trump can be a sexist and a sexual harasser, but he loves powerful women -- and he knows this would irritate the Dems.

Collins and Murkowski would've gone for the ride even if it was a male justice who released a rap song titled "F Roe V. Wade."

Barrett was born the same year as Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Eminem, Gwyneth Paltrow, Sofia Vergara, everybody in Green Day and The Rock.

She'll be Ruth Bader Ginsburg's age in 2057.

I'm actually shocked that Trump picked a justice who was so old.

It's also weird that it's been nearly 40 years since the Republicans picked a female.

Also weird that it's been nearly 40 years since a non-Ivy Leaguer was picked.


Good summary.

We shall see about the two GOP senators. I'm speculating Barrett says nothing about Roe because she may have to rule on abortion. Basically, nominees now avoid directly addressing anything contentious. This feels like Thomas pick (without the sexual harassment element). Minority, young, true believer, and with limited judicial experience. I do like that they might have someone who didn't go told school at Harvard or Yale.

Assuming Barrett makes it, the only hope for moderation will be Roberts, who does seem to be political.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ginsburg is likely to croak next. She should have stepped down during Obama's term. But of course Hillary was going to win and would be able to appoint two justices. Instead it looks like Trump may get three. What idiocy!
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

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.


Anger will get you no where. Right now job growth rate at the same time out form starting office is about the same, but considering the low Obama started with, I'm rather unimpressed by Obama's record. Wages are slightly higher under Trump. Increase in economic growth is somewhat better under Obama, but again, he was going from the bottom. The stock market growth is about the same depending on what day you look at. What is a huge difference is capital investment is way up under Trump, particularly new orders. There is a reason number 2 has happened and its not you conspiracy theory of the rich media elites.

Deficits sky rocketed under Obama and continue on the same arch under Trump. I expect them to get bigger. We will see if number one is correct. I hope your right - with the risk goes the reward.

I don't even understand Trump's foreign policy in order to critique it.

Those of us who were tasked to reading and reporting on Clinton's tax policy papers found them wonting in substance. Empowering women and other catch phrases are not policy. FWIW, Trump's had much more in the way of specifics and rather unbelievable assumptions on growth.
The economy is the same and on the same trajectory as Obama's 2nd term. You can cherrypick one data point (Q1 2018 business investment) but that by itself doesn't change anything. If you have anything else, please provide the data rather than talking points.

On deficits you are just flat out, factually wrong. Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit and cut it to 1/3 over his Presidency. Now, with Trump, deficits are back on the rise.

Nice of you to give Trump credit for a tax plan he delivered only 6 weeks before the election and which, as you mention, was completely unbelievable. Hillary's tax plan was very thorough and very solid.

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

As for Clinton versus Trump: My speculation is with Clinton, the economy would be back in the doldrums, there would be legislative grid lock and we might be at war. We would also have a President that acted Presidential, and at least an understandable foreign policy. Best I can say is I had to vote between two flawed candidates. I went with my pocketbook.
To believe we might be at war under Clinton right now is to announce to the world that you will believe any incredible bs propaganda about her that anybody would throw out there.

I hope your pocketbook likes financial volatility and debt.
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Nope, media now reporting its Barrett based on an article by Orrin Hatch using female pronouns to describe the nominee. Social conservatives win this round. Wonder if Collins and Murkowski go along for the ride?

That would be a very shrewd move by Trump. Can't believe Collins and Murkowski would oppose a female nominee. And it would be fun to see Feinstein, Harris, and the feminists oppose her.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golden One said:

wifeisafurd said:

Nope, media now reporting its Barrett based on an article by Orrin Hatch using female pronouns to describe the nominee. Social conservatives win this round. Wonder if Collins and Murkowski go along for the ride?

That would be a very shrewd move by Trump. Can't believe Collins and Murkowski would oppose a female nominee. And it would be fun to see Feinstein, Harris, and the feminists oppose her.
Comments like this show you don't really understand Democratic thinking or feminism. Feinstein, Harris, etc. would have no problem opposing her because her values are bad.
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Golden One said:

wifeisafurd said:

Nope, media now reporting its Barrett based on an article by Orrin Hatch using female pronouns to describe the nominee. Social conservatives win this round. Wonder if Collins and Murkowski go along for the ride?

That would be a very shrewd move by Trump. Can't believe Collins and Murkowski would oppose a female nominee. And it would be fun to see Feinstein, Harris, and the feminists oppose her.
Comments like this show you don't really understand Democratic thinking or feminism. Feinstein, Harris, etc. would have no problem opposing her because her values are bad.
Total B.S.! Personal ambition is more important than values to Harris; Feinstein is more unpredictable, but she has never been big on values. Is there really such a thing as "Democratic thinking"? I never viewed the party as uni-dimensional.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Reuters is reporting Susan Collins will NOT confirm an anti-abortion candidate.

I'll believe it when I see it. Collins is tagged as a liberal GOP but she usually rolls over on stuff and "looks the other way" on stuff if there's enough pressure.

During confirmation I want every senator on the panel to ask the nominee if they will recuse themselves on any impeachment matters due to being recently appointed.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Collins: "Will you promise to uphold Roe vs Wade?"

Nominee: " I believe in precedent and strict constructionism."

Collins: " Sounds good."
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harris has some principles. Feinstein forgot where she left hers.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Harris has some principles. Feinstein forgot where she left hers.


Feinstein is broadly liberal, but will bend in the direction of the political winds. Harris seems like more of a firebrand, but then she is also much younger, so who knows where that will go? She clearly has higher ambitions.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Feinstein also has an opponent to the left of her.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiFi is a socially moderate Democrat with big corporate ties. She now backs single-payer healthcare, but only after Kevin DeLeon pushed her. If she's reelected I imagine she'll go back her usual status quo.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Feinstein also has an opponent to the left of her.


Which is why she has been tilting left lately.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I just looked up Harris voting record

She voted against the torturing c$nt Gina Haspel

Against the fat f$ck Mike Pompeo

Against the lying b$tch Kirsten Nielsen

Against the twisted reactionary Neil Gorsuch

Like her or not, she does have an eye for losers.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golden One said:

dajo9 said:

Golden One said:

wifeisafurd said:

Nope, media now reporting its Barrett based on an article by Orrin Hatch using female pronouns to describe the nominee. Social conservatives win this round. Wonder if Collins and Murkowski go along for the ride?

That would be a very shrewd move by Trump. Can't believe Collins and Murkowski would oppose a female nominee. And it would be fun to see Feinstein, Harris, and the feminists oppose her.
Comments like this show you don't really understand Democratic thinking or feminism. Feinstein, Harris, etc. would have no problem opposing her because her values are bad.
Total B.S.! Personal ambition is more important than values to Harris; Feinstein is more unpredictable, but she has never been big on values. Is there really such a thing as "Democratic thinking"? I never viewed the party as uni-dimensional.


Comments like this show your comments on Democrats are worthless
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

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.


Anger will get you no where. Right now job growth rate at the same time out form starting office is about the same, but considering the low Obama started with, I'm rather unimpressed by Obama's record. Wages are slightly higher under Trump. Increase in economic growth is somewhat better under Obama, but again, he was going from the bottom. The stock market growth is about the same depending on what day you look at. What is a huge difference is capital investment is way up under Trump, particularly new orders. There is a reason number 2 has happened and its not you conspiracy theory of the rich media elites.

Deficits sky rocketed under Obama and continue on the same arch under Trump. I expect them to get bigger. We will see if number one is correct. I hope your right - with the risk goes the reward.

I don't even understand Trump's foreign policy in order to critique it.

Those of us who were tasked to reading and reporting on Clinton's tax policy papers found them wonting in substance. Empowering women and other catch phrases are not policy. FWIW, Trump's had much more in the way of specifics and rather unbelievable assumptions on growth.
The economy is the same and on the same trajectory as Obama's 2nd term. You can cherrypick one data point (Q1 2018 business investment) but that by itself doesn't change anything. If you have anything else, please provide the data rather than talking points.

On deficits you are just flat out, factually wrong. Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit and cut it to 1/3 over his Presidency. Now, with Trump, deficits are back on the rise.

Nice of you to give Trump credit for a tax plan he delivered only 6 weeks before the election and which, as you mention, was completely unbelievable. Hillary's tax plan was very thorough and very solid.


You really don't know what you are talking about.

Under Obama the national debt grew $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase. This was also the fifth-largest increase percentage-wise of any President. Is that a specific enough date point for someone that quotes no date.

If you don't understand that measuring rates of growth at a much lower starting point is a lot easier than at a higher point, then you need to go back to school.

When it comes to cherry picking your ignored the increase in capital spending and orders.

The press is saying its a much stronger economy than under Obama because it is. You many not like it and try to rationalize your concerns by blaming the rich (how liberal of you).

You clearly didn't read the Clinton tax plan. But be sure to throw in a lot of terms like enitlement and spending on unarmed "investments" in your response. I was asked by a public client to comment if they would benefit by either President 's economic plan. My response is no one knows what Clinton will spend money on and if you will benefit. My response is on Trump the only way to benefit is through a private capita partnership, such as an alternative energy facility since that was actually called out. Trump's spending was actually itemized in many areas. Clinton was words. Sorta like saying very thorough and solid.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jesus, the conservative canard about the deficit is pure bullbleep. No GOP POTUS has ever reduced the deficit and Trump surely isn't going to either. Why do conservatives keep using this line of bullbleep? It's been a 30+ year lie, since Reagan.

For god sake, Dubya started to unwinnable wars that the U.S. will be paying for, FOREVER. Now Dotard comes along and blows it up even more.

For fcck sake, you conservatives keep calling up the deficit but you've never done a damn thing about it, EVER. Just knock it off will you. Jesus...bunch of clowns running a shttshow.

Congressional Budget Office finds higher deficits under Trump budget than administration projects

TRILLION-dollar deficits come roaring back under Trump
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

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.

Any accountants on the board would be laughing in stitches at you, wiaf. Businesses make decisions based on future projections. If they are flush with cash, and project more cash to come in, they won't wait for the cash to make the distribution - they'll go ahead and make it. The fact corporations are already so flush with cash is exactly why the tax cuts won't stimulate growth - businesses already have ample cash for good business opportunities.

Also, it's a waste of time for you to differentiate between corporations and flow through entities. The original point still holds - the beneficiaries are the wealthy whether they be wealthy owners of publicly traded stocks or wealthy owners of flow through entities or something else. Your obfuscation is needless and ineffective.
The pont missed was they could not have possibly been paying those dividends and stock buy backs out of tax savings as both the article and poster indicated any accountant knows is bs. The concern expressed in the article that there would be no investment due to tax savings has not held-up, as investment and new orders are up as the tax savings are now being realized, suggesting your commentary is utter nonsense. Having actually sat in board meetings, there are a variety of considerations behind dividends and stock buy backs that have nothing to do with tax savings. The tax benefits to flow through entities will little impact except in the case of small business or real estate due to caps placed on the benefit. So to suggest flow throughs and corporation are in the same position show an utter lack of understanding of the new tax law.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

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.

Any accountants on the board would be laughing in stitches at you, wiaf. Businesses make decisions based on future projections. If they are flush with cash, and project more cash to come in, they won't wait for the cash to make the distribution - they'll go ahead and make it. The fact corporations are already so flush with cash is exactly why the tax cuts won't stimulate growth - businesses already have ample cash for good business opportunities.

Also, it's a waste of time for you to differentiate between corporations and flow through entities. The original point still holds - the beneficiaries are the wealthy whether they be wealthy owners of publicly traded stocks or wealthy owners of flow through entities or something else. Your obfuscation is needless and ineffective.
The pont missed was they could not have possibly been paying those dividends and stock buy backs out of tax savings as both the article and poster indicated any accountant knows is bs. The concern expressed in the article that there would be no investment due to tax savings has not held-up, as investment and new orders are up as the tax savings are now being realized, suggesting your commentary is utter nonsense. Having actually sat in board meetings, there are a variety of considerations behind dividends and stock buy backs that have nothing to do with tax savings. The tax benefits to flow through entities will little impact except in the case of small business or real estate due to caps placed on the benefit. So to suggest flow throughs and corporation are in the same position show an utter lack of understanding of the new tax law.
Once again you fail to understand what is being said to you by myself and others. Of course, other things go into cash distributions other than tax savings. In my career, tax implications have been almost the least discussed thing. But when there is a big tax giveaway to the rich and then big cash distributions to the rich - you can make up all the excuses you want. We all see it happening.

Business investment excluding oil and gas is actually down vs. last year so we will see if you are correct that Trump is a genius or if we just have a one quarter anomaly due to high gas prices.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:



You really don't know what you are talking about.

Under Obama the national debt grew $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase. This was also the fifth-largest increase percentage-wise of any President. Is that a specific enough date point for someone that quotes no date.

Wifeisafurd on 7/6/18 at 8:08pm:
"Deficits skyrocketed under Obama"

Me in rebuttal:
"On deficits you are just flat out, factually wrong. Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit and cut it to 1/3 over his Presidency."

Wiaf in rebuttal above:
"Under Obama the national debt grew. . . "

Maybe the takeaway from this discussion is that Wifeisafurd doesn't know the difference between the deficit and the debt. But, of course he does know that difference. But he is flustered and making mistakes because he is trying to defend the indefensible.

Wiaf, we all know what we are talking about. You just have nowhere to hide. Of course, if a President inherits a $1.3 trillion deficit the debt will go up under his watch as it did Obama. He inherited Bush's tax cuts, recession, and two wars, and the $1.3 trillion deficit that came with all that. He turned that ship around (you can't turn around an ocean cruiser on a dime) and reduced the deficit, moving us in the right direction. Trump has now done the opposite.

Prediction: If a Democrat wins in 2020 there will be many years of budget deficits because of Wifeisafurd voted for Republican / Trump policies. Wifeisafurd and Republicans will blame those deficits on the Democrats. Let's see if stupidity can win beyond 2016.
kjkbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

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).


What did you disagree with another? okaydo, without referring to supermajorities by name, said Obama only had control for four months. His points only were valid with reference to supermajorities. So I corrected what he said. That's no defense of Trump, but one thing Trump will never have for a minute is a supermajority in the Senate. Obama had one for two years. And Trump is completely ineffective. No one doubts this.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Collins: "Will you promise to uphold Roe vs Wade?"

Nominee: " I believe in precedent and strict constructionism."

Collins: " Sounds good."
Yop, that is the script.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:



You really don't know what you are talking about.

Under Obama the national debt grew $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase. This was also the fifth-largest increase percentage-wise of any President. Is that a specific enough date point for someone that quotes no date.

Wifeisafurd on 7/6/18 at 8:08pm:
"Deficits skyrocketed under Obama"

Me in rebuttal:
"On deficits you are just flat out, factually wrong. Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit and cut it to 1/3 over his Presidency."

Wiaf in rebuttal above:
"Under Obama the national debt grew. . . "

Maybe the takeaway from this discussion is that Wifeisafurd doesn't know the difference between the deficit and the debt. But, of course he does know that difference. But he is flustered and making mistakes because he is trying to defend the indefensible.

Wiaf, we all know what we are talking about. You just have nowhere to hide. Of course, if a President inherits a $1.3 trillion deficit the debt will go up under his watch as it did Obama. He inherited Bush's tax cuts, recession, and two wars, and the $1.3 trillion deficit that came with all that. He turned that ship around (you can't turn around an ocean cruiser on a dime) and reduced the deficit, moving us in the right direction. Trump has now done the opposite.

Prediction: If a Democrat wins in 2020 there will be many years of budget deficits because of Wifeisafurd voted for Republican / Trump policies. Wifeisafurd and Republicans will blame those deficits on the Democrats. Let's see if stupidity can win beyond 2016.
From the NY FED:

How much did the total deficit rise by each President since Reagan

Again using data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve, these are starting and ending federal debt numbers since President Reagan. I've computed the total percentage increase and the compounded yearly rate.
What the numbers show is that the total debt increased the most at 184% over 8 years and at the fastest rate under President Reagan at almost 14% per year. In fact, the three Republican presidents had the fastest growing debt on a yearly basis.
Reagan
  • Started Presidency: $965 billion
  • Ended Presidency: $2.74 trillion
  • Increased 184% or 13.9% per year

H.W. Bush
  • Started Presidency: $2.74 trillion
  • Ended Presidency: $4.23 trillion
  • Increased 54% or 11.5% per year (only in office for four years)
Clinton
  • Started Presidency: $4.23 trillion
  • Ended Presidency: $5.77 trillion
  • Increased 36% or 4.0% per year

W. Bush
  • Started Presidency: $5.77 trillion
  • Ended Presidency: $11.1 trillion
  • Increased 93% or 8.5% per year
Obama
  • Started Presidency: $11.1 trillion
  • Ended Presidency: $19.85 trillion
  • Increased 78% or 7.5% per year
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kjkbear said:

Another Bear said:

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).


What did you disagree with another? okaydo, without referring to supermajorities by name, said Obama only had control for four months. His points only were valid with reference to supermajorities. So I corrected what he said. That's no defense of Trump, but one thing Trump will never have for a minute is a supermajority in the Senate. Obama had one for two years. And Trump is completely ineffective. No one doubts this.
why bother, he will just make something else up.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:



You really don't know what you are talking about.

Under Obama the national debt grew $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase. This was also the fifth-largest increase percentage-wise of any President. Is that a specific enough date point for someone that quotes no date.

Wifeisafurd on 7/6/18 at 8:08pm:
"Deficits skyrocketed under Obama"

Me in rebuttal:
"On deficits you are just flat out, factually wrong. Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit and cut it to 1/3 over his Presidency."

Wiaf in rebuttal above:
"Under Obama the national debt grew. . . "

Maybe the takeaway from this discussion is that Wifeisafurd doesn't know the difference between the deficit and the debt. But, of course he does know that difference. But he is flustered and making mistakes because he is trying to defend the indefensible.

Wiaf, we all know what we are talking about. You just have nowhere to hide. Of course, if a President inherits a $1.3 trillion deficit the debt will go up under his watch as it did Obama. He inherited Bush's tax cuts, recession, and two wars, and the $1.3 trillion deficit that came with all that. He turned that ship around (you can't turn around an ocean cruiser on a dime) and reduced the deficit, moving us in the right direction. Trump has now done the opposite.

Prediction: If a Democrat wins in 2020 there will be many years of budget deficits because of Wifeisafurd voted for Republican / Trump policies. Wifeisafurd and Republicans will blame those deficits on the Democrats. Let's see if stupidity can win beyond 2016.
From the NY FED:

How much did the total deficit rise by each President since Reagan

Again using data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve, these are starting and ending federal debt numbers since President Reagan. I've computed the total percentage increase and the compounded yearly rate.
What the numbers show is that the total debt increased the most at 184% over 8 years and at the fastest rate under President Reagan at almost 14% per year. In fact, the three Republican presidents had the fastest growing debt on a yearly basis.
Reagan
  • Started Presidency: $965 billion
  • Ended Presidency: $2.74 trillion
  • Increased 184% or 13.9% per year

H.W. Bush
  • Started Presidency: $2.74 trillion
  • Ended Presidency: $4.23 trillion
  • Increased 54% or 11.5% per year (only in office for four years)
Clinton
  • Started Presidency: $4.23 trillion
  • Ended Presidency: $5.77 trillion
  • Increased 36% or 4.0% per year

W. Bush
  • Started Presidency: $5.77 trillion
  • Ended Presidency: $11.1 trillion
  • Increased 93% or 8.5% per year
Obama
  • Started Presidency: $11.1 trillion
  • Ended Presidency: $19.85 trillion
  • Increased 78% or 7.5% per year

Even to my layman's eye, this also seems to mention the deficit in the headline but the debt in the body. Dajo seems right about the two things being conflated here.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
On Obama:

Despite the view he was either horrible at managing the economy or great, the story is far more nuanced:

The stimulus package probably was not very effective because it was designed and implemented poorly, too small, and likely may have had a chilling effect on using stimulus plans in the future. That said, maintaining the FED policies like QE that eventually worked. His bailout of the auto industry worked. His use of defect spending during a recession (despite some rants to the contrary) stimulated the economy. Carbon emissions trading also worked. A lot of his regulations killed jobs and companies, and a lot of them created new industries. He inherited a mess, but at some point he had to own the economy, and that economy was slow, but steady improvement. We have no stimulated the economy with a large tax cut and more deficit spending. The economy may be overheated as feared by the FED and inflation may result (ironically, the objective of QE). We also have a trade war. We will see how it all turns out.

The folks in this board only see things in black and white, and often there are shades of grey. They need to be called on it. I take my leave.
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.