Political Roundtable Part XVI

[dckingsfan]

Omarosa is trash and deserves to be mocked and laughed at.

And pointing to the economy under Trump is really just giving credit to Obama. This economy would have been performing close to the same whether Obama stayed in office, Hillary Clinton was President or those turkeys that Trumped pardoned were running the administration. Why? Because Trump hasn't achieved a single piece of legislation that would affect the economy. The tax plan will be the first major piece of legislation and even then we won't know the effects for 6 to 12 months after it's been implemented. Let me ask you SD20, was Obama responsible for the state of the economy right after he took office? How about this same time in 2009?

Yeah, I wouldn't give too much credit to Obama either.

So who and what gets the credit for the significant improvements in the stock market, unemployment and other economic factors under Obama? We certainly know that Obama would have gotten the blame if the economy had continued to tank under his watch.

Yep, politically he would have gotten the blame. That's how it is if you are POTUS.

You aren't going to want to hear this but... it was the Fed and the Rs in the House.

The Fed through easing of monetary policies (of course QE clobbered wage earners and helped the rich and banks) and the House locking down spending and tax increases to provide certainty to the business community.

The stimulus was largely ineffective - mostly because of what it was spent on.

[Wizardspride]

Interesting read...and disturbing.

Read on Twitter

[DCZards]

Yeah, I wouldn't give too much credit to Obama either.

So who and what gets the credit for the significant improvements in the stock market, unemployment and other economic factors under Obama? We certainly know that Obama would have gotten the blame if the economy had continued to tank under his watch.

Yep, politically he would have gotten the blame. That's how it is if you are POTUS.

You aren't going to want to hear this but... it was the Fed and the Rs in the House.

The Fed through easing of monetary policies (of course QE clobbered wage earners and helped the rich and banks) and the House locking down spending and tax increases to provide certainty to the business community.

The stimulus was largely ineffective - mostly because of what it was spent on.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion and there's very likely some truth to it. But here's three specific things that I think helped the economy significantly...and you're probably not going to want to hear them because Obama gets most of the credit.

1. Bailing out the auto industry
2. The economic stimulus package
3. Letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire

[TGW]

Yeah, I wouldn't give too much credit to Obama either.

So who and what gets the credit for the significant improvements in the stock market, unemployment and other economic factors under Obama? We certainly know that Obama would have gotten the blame if the economy had continued to tank under his watch.

Yep, politically he would have gotten the blame. That's how it is if you are POTUS.

You aren't going to want to hear this but... it was the Fed and the Rs in the House.

The Fed through easing of monetary policies (of course QE clobbered wage earners and helped the rich and banks) and the House locking down spending and tax increases to provide certainty to the business community.

The stimulus was largely ineffective - mostly because of what it was spent on.

we'll agree to disagree on your last statement. The stimulus basically saved the economy. It curtailed the halt of services and saved certain industries--mainly the American car manufacturers. Many financial institutions that were taken over by the government have paid back the government with interest. Obama made many shrewd moves in his first term. I know as a conservative, you hate giving credit to Obama for anything, but that was something he was right on. As a matter of fact, the stimulus was too small. It should have been larger.

edit: btw I'm not an Obama apologist. I hated his entire 2nd term. But his actions as President when he first stepped into office were pretty good in hindsight. Many of his decisions saved the economy. I remember McCain's silly proposals during the 2008 election--they would have been disastrous.

[dckingsfan]

So who and what gets the credit for the significant improvements in the stock market, unemployment and other economic factors under Obama? We certainly know that Obama would have gotten the blame if the economy had continued to tank under his watch.

Yep, politically he would have gotten the blame. That's how it is if you are POTUS.

You aren't going to want to hear this but... it was the Fed and the Rs in the House.

The Fed through easing of monetary policies (of course QE clobbered wage earners and helped the rich and banks) and the House locking down spending and tax increases to provide certainty to the business community.

The stimulus was largely ineffective - mostly because of what it was spent on.

we'll agree to disagree on your last statement. The stimulus basically saved the economy. It curtailed the halt of services and saved certain industries--mainly the American car manufacturers. Many financial institutions that were taken over by the government have paid back the government with interest. Obama made many shrewd moves in his first term. I know as a conservative, you hate giving credit to Obama for anything, but that was something he was right on. As a matter of fact, the stimulus was too small. It should have been larger.

Yep, let's agree to disagree. IMO, the stimulus didn't save the economy. American car manufactures would have recovered with expedited chapter proceedings but Bush approved the bailout plan and gave GNM and Chrysler the ~ $13.4 billion in financing from TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program). The "financial institution takeover" was not part of the stimulus - and it wasn't well orchestrated either. We even reached out to some banks to take over troubled banks and then penalized them later - that tool won't be available to the next POTUS.

The stimulus didn't accelerate job growth, didn't accelerate GDP growth and is now a bit part of our problem with our finances going forward. It wasn't shrewd. How much faster would the economy be growing today if we didn't have the carrying cost of $6 trillion in debt to contend with? Answer: Plenty.

The financial crisis of 2008 was a massive real estate bubble due to easy money from the Fed, government policies through federal entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that underwrite risky mortgage loans (enabling greedy banks) with near 100% loan guarantees, a Congress and White House that rolled the dice on the housing market. Investors and home owners then got caught up in a speculation frenzy.

Now we're repeating the same inane pre-recession mistakes, with government again guaranteeing 90% of new mortgages, financed with easy money and many low down payment loans. Flat out stupid.

So, you can try to frame it as you will... but you might want to dig in first.

[Ruzious]

SD, I'm trying not to call you a __ _____, I really am, but you are. What in the f do you think dramatically cutting the corporate tax rate - along with cutting other tax rates - is going to do to the debt that you pretend to care about? Don't say anything other than dramatcally increase it, because anything else is a f'n lie, and you have to be a clown to not know that. Are you a clown? Prove it by answering.

And Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security... these aren't just for the poor and unemployed. Without them, there will be a lot more poor and unemployed. How do you not understand that? Here again, I'm resisting the urge, but it's hard. You know what I think of you right now, right? Look in the mirror and call yourself that for me. Thanks bunches in advance.

Btw, what do you think the elderly are doing? My Mom just turned 85 - she still substitute teaches in public schools and still collects SS because we haven't had imbeciles like Trump in office.

ehhhh.....tyin' to figure out your question.......exactly.....i think you are asking me if cutting taxes will increase the deficit?

In theory, yes. If the GDP is stangant and we remain in the 8 year Obama recession. Yes. You are right. In your vaccuum of little to no growth or even a recession.

However, if growth (GDP) is significant enough that new business is created. You would then create new tax dollars. and Offshore overseas money is repatriated(trillions of it!!!!!) then those taxes even at lower rates creates a ton more revenue.

Remember 21% of something is better than 35% of nothing!!!!!

Trump is betting on himself to get the economy going. and keep it going. So far he's winning. if you havent noticed? oh that's right, CNN wont cover it. GDP is at 3.3%!! 3.9% expected next quarter and perhaps as much as 4-4.1%. Unemployement is at 4.1% 3.9% expected next quarter.

Its working, Dat. Its effin working right now!!!!!!!

We have yet to see the repatriation of those trillions of the offshore wealth. Offshore, huge corporations pay 10-20%. For example, right now, Apple has over 300 billion offshore!!!!!!!!!!!! 3. hundred. effing. billion.!!!!! they pay 10% in ireland. Economic Experts believe corporations like Apple will bring that money back here even at 20-21%. and trump is the guy to call them out if they dont. But at 35-40%??? he cant blame them, yet.

You do understand this position, right? I mean fully? and we can argue how to implement it to best make it work. But this is the plan. The plan is not to just take money away from the poor. at all. the plan is to create even more tax dollars.

So we might not lose a single penny for entitlements. not. a. single. penny. Its a boom vs. bust mentality.

So imo, all these idiot democrats and liberal media are doing is nothing more than attempting to derail the boom. which will bring us back to the bust economy. where we do nothing but borrow into oblivion and end up needing even more money for entitlements as more people lose their jobs.

all for what!!!!!???/So democrats can remain in power!!!!????? why????????? For what??? more entitlements!!!????????

stop the effin insanity!! folks!!! get off your azzes and instead be happy to go to work!!! Its ok to work!!!! you dont need big daddy government's nipple to swuck on!!!!!!!!!you will actually be happier when you work!! mentally and physically healthier!! have more self respect!!!!!!! stick around with the family more!!!! have a healthier relationship with you wife or husband, even your baby n daddy momma will appreciate you more, might even get some side tail from time to time with a few more bucks in your pocket that you actually earned, and do a better job as a parent!!!!!!!You dong might even grow an inch. Mine grew at least 2 when i made my first million. all of which will benefit the kids!!!! so they do NOT grow up on and get too accustomed to big daddy government's nipple and around parents "beaten down" by the "system." Beat the system!!! Engage in society!! have a personal plan for wealth. its not that hard.

Ya know...there is an entirely different paradigm out there. a different way of life. where you make your own damn money. and have enough of it to share with family and friends to help them, the last thing you will want is big daddy government taking out large portions of your check only to inefficiently spend it on go nowhere, non-needle moving entitlements which are not healthy. I grew up with parents that waited for their check each month. They were miserable, they made everyone around them miserable. they never "got out" of it. But all their children. All of us!! BY not doing it the way they did it. 50 effin years later, my mom still waits for that check each month. And is miserable. all because she was never made (or forced) to engage with society in a healthy manner. Always angry, always pissed off, always thinking everything should just be given to her and that life was fair. Well, me and all my brothers and sisters figured out real quick that life aint fair. and did nearly everything different than they did. Starting with engaging in society in a polite fashion and willing to work hard to "earn our keep" along the way.

just my two cents.

Your 2 cents is worth 35% of nothing. Why do you think the CBO said the Senate plan would add 1.4 trillion to the debt over the next decade - and that was before changes were reportedly made that would dramatically increase that number? Committee for a Responsible Federal Government estimated it would be 6 trillion. Is this because they haven't seen your posts? They haven't been exposed to the genius that is you?

And the stuff you put in quotes shows you're not listening. It's all just more irrelevant blubbering blabberings. You have a tendency to do that... a lot. Has anyone mentioned that? Not that you noticed? Btw, not to sound harsh (this time), but do you have any family or close friends? It might help to understand where you're coming from.

[JWizmentality]

And people continue to feed the troll. Ya'll have no self control.

[Ruzious]

And people continue to feed the troll. Ya'll have no self control.

My bad. Can we call it an illness - I need to go to troll-feeding rehab.

[JWizmentality]

And people continue to feed the troll. Ya'll have no self control.

My bad. Can we call it an illness - I need to go to troll-feeding rehab.

No no I get it. It's quite addicting. The first step is admitting that you are really doing this for your own self amusement. You see the "Do Not Feed The Monkey" sign but goddamnit if that monkey aint entertaining.

[I_Like_Dirt]

You aren't going to want to hear this but... it was the Fed and the Rs in the House.

The Fed through easing of monetary policies (of course QE clobbered wage earners and helped the rich and banks) and the House locking down spending and tax increases to provide certainty to the business community.

I actually think the House's impact is way overstated, too. It was clearly the Fed. I don't think people fully realize the full impact of quantitative easing. In fact, I'm positive that I don't realize the full impact of quantitative easing, either, but it really did gut wage earners for the benefit of the rich and the banks, as you suggest. The Fed really was the central factor in the current strength of the stock market and economy at large, at this point, but the costs of achieving those ends were rather steep and not really all that well known. Was it worth it? It's impossible to say at this point, but personally I'm highly skeptical of it all and I don't really see any reason to suggest it was worth it. Instability would have sucked, but bailing out the insanely wealthy people who created the mess at the expense of everyone else was a big problem that created a rather dramatic shift in the power balance overall and I certainly don't trust that power imbalance not to be exploited in the future, particularly not when it's already being exploited in the present.

[dckingsfan]

I remember McCain's silly proposals during the 2008 election--they would have been disastrous.

We get to agree on that

[DCZards]

Yep, let's agree to disagree. IMO, the stimulus didn't save the economy. American car manufactures would have recovered with expedited chapter proceedings but Bush approved the bailout plan and gave GNM and Chrysler the ~ $13.4 billion in financing from TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program). The "financial institution takeover" was not part of the stimulus - and it wasn't well orchestrated either. We even reached out to some banks to take over troubled banks and then penalized them later - that tool won't be available to the next POTUS.

I don't want to prolong this debate because I'm sure you and I will never agree on how, where and when federal resources (taxpayer money) should be invested. Kinda like how you use the word "entitlements" for programs that I would call "safety nets."

One point though. Yes, Bush approved the auto bailout. But it was Obama who signed it into law over the objections of those who wanted to go the bankruptcy route, which I think was a bad idea.

btw, Obamacare also helped the economy but that's a (long) discussion for another day.

[closg00]

Interesting read...and disturbing.

Read on Twitter

A Democrat President under the exact same set of circumstances would have been undergoing impeachment months ago.

[cammac]

You aren't going to want to hear this but... it was the Fed and the Rs in the House.

The Fed through easing of monetary policies (of course QE clobbered wage earners and helped the rich and banks) and the House locking down spending and tax increases to provide certainty to the business community.

I actually think the House's impact is way overstated, too. It was clearly the Fed. I don't think people fully realize the full impact of quantitative easing. In fact, I'm positive that I don't realize the full impact of quantitative easing, either, but it really did gut wage earners for the benefit of the rich and the banks, as you suggest. The Fed really was the central factor in the current strength of the stock market and economy at large, at this point, but the costs of achieving those ends were rather steep and not really all that well known. Was it worth it? It's impossible to say at this point, but personally I'm highly skeptical of it all and I don't really see any reason to suggest it was worth it. Instability would have sucked, but bailing out the insanely wealthy people who created the mess at the expense of everyone else was a big problem that created a rather dramatic shift in the power balance overall and I certainly don't trust that power imbalance not to be exploited in the future, particularly not when it's already being exploited in the present.

If you look at the effects of the economic collapse in the USA and Canada there were extreme differences.
None of the Canadian banks were in trouble and real estate prices were not only stable but rose. Sure Canada was hurt it was inevitable because your biggest trading partner was wounded badly. But the reasons that financial institutions were safe was Canadian government strict policies on banks and that our equivalent of the Federal Reserve was much more stringent on economic policy than the USA. Australia was not hurt as badly either because of similar policies. Where Banks and Financial Services are given free reign disaster is waiting to happen.

[dckingsfan]

You aren't going to want to hear this but... it was the Fed and the Rs in the House.

The Fed through easing of monetary policies (of course QE clobbered wage earners and helped the rich and banks) and the House locking down spending and tax increases to provide certainty to the business community.

I actually think the House's impact is way overstated, too. It was clearly the Fed. I don't think people fully realize the full impact of quantitative easing. In fact, I'm positive that I don't realize the full impact of quantitative easing, either, but it really did gut wage earners for the benefit of the rich and the banks, as you suggest. The Fed really was the central factor in the current strength of the stock market and economy at large, at this point, but the costs of achieving those ends were rather steep and not really all that well known. Was it worth it? It's impossible to say at this point, but personally I'm highly skeptical of it all and I don't really see any reason to suggest it was worth it. Instability would have sucked, but bailing out the insanely wealthy people who created the mess at the expense of everyone else was a big problem that created a rather dramatic shift in the power balance overall and I certainly don't trust that power imbalance not to be exploited in the future, particularly not when it's already being exploited in the present.

Agreed on the Fed. They clearly had the most impact on ending the great recession and alas, you are right - they created a wealth transfer at the same time.

The impact of the House shouldn't be understated. It stopped the poor allocation of our resources and another misguided stimulus. We should have just cut $100K checks to individuals without jobs from the first stimulus bill - we would have come out way ahead.

TARP helped - but wasn't a huge factor overall.

Way down the list of what helped was the actual stimulus.

The great recession was definitely a tipping point in politics. One that at least partially brought us Trump and the rise of populists. It also brought us a very large chunk of debt that will shift our spending policies and priorities going forward - in ways we are yet to know. And yet here we are again with the easy money policies that got is in trouble in the first place.

[stilldropin20]

yes!!!!!!! its working. China growth slowing down. at the expense of booming US economy? methinks so. Money coming out of china getting repatiated! #MAGA trump for the win! #youdontmesswitdatrumpster

Ummm - this has been happening for quite some time...

I lived in China for 10 years up to a little over 2 years ago. China is slowing since it crossed the path from a rural economy to a industrialized economy. Also China is no longer a low cost country many of the products that China made are now made in other countries such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Philippines, Bangladesh & Indonesia. China is becoming much more dependent on internal consumption.

Many myths about the Chinese economy which has overcapacity in almost every sector and likely has as big a problem with national debt as the USA does. My wife has only one asset remaining in China and we have put that on the market and all my financial ties were eliminated earlier in December with the final payment for my business.

Frankly I wouldn't invest in China again but that doesn't mean that there aren't good business opportunities in south east asia and africa.

Good for you. but frankly,

this. tells. me. all. i. need. to. know. i knew there was a reason you are a full throated globalist. And is your wife chinese may I ask. I normally would never ask that kind of question but given the interrogation you and others have put me through over the past 5 months, i feel i have the grounds to be so bold.

Either way, essentially, you found a way to form a company in China where massive manipulation of the currency and labor market exists to the detriment of other countries that massively produce goods, like the United States of America. And to the detriment of their own Chinese people many of which are still living in poverty level unheard of for such a "developed" nation and a healthcare system that is still third world through out most of the country. and Infastructure that is still third world through out most of the country.

You went into this country? and you formed or bought a company here? and you took advantage of these currency and labor manipulations of their own people and which worked against your own country and the USA. A country that also has a poor track record of human rights, and health care. The entire country just barely caught up and has been brought into the 21st century over the last 2 decades.

You took advantage of all that for profit!!!??? and have the nerve to come in here take the high ground?? Spoken like a true liberal globalist is all I can say.

and I dont hate you for bettering yourself and seeing a chance and taking it. I dont. at all. But jesus christ. get off the effin soap box man!!!!!!

Now with that out of the way, if you can get a dental lab up and running there or which ever country you now plan to exploit for cheap labor and pennies on the dollar material that it costs in the US we can make tens of millions. You got the international saavy, and i got the sales force here in the US and a US Dentist behind it. Fa reelz!!!

[popper]

Cammac – I’ve remained open minded about single payer but studies like the one below really concern me. The shift to single payer would be a big adjustment for many Americans. I can only speak for myself, but I’ve never had to wait to see, or be treated by a specialist. I’ve never had to wait for an MRI or any other medical test. You mentioned before that Canadians can buy additional private insurance to augment the govt. plan. Under that circumstance are wait times reduced or eliminated?

……..The Fraser Institute found that patients under Canada's single-payer system this year waited an average of 10.9 weeks—roughly two-and-a-half months—from the time they had a consultation with a specialist to the time at which they received treatment. Physicians consider 7.2 weeks to be a clinically reasonable wait time.

The report also found that patients' wait for treatment after referral to a specialist by their general practitioner was 21.2 weeks, or longer than four months.

"This year's wait time—the longest ever recorded in this survey's history—is 128 percent longer than in 1993, when it was just 9.3 weeks," the report states.

The report, which looks at 10 provinces in Canada, found that there are 1,040,791 patients waiting for procedures. There are also high wait times to receive scans and ultrasounds. Patients waited an average of 10.8 weeks for an MRI scan and 3.9 weeks for an ultrasound.

"Research has repeatedly indicated that wait times for medically necessary treatment are not benign inconveniences," the report states. "Wait times can, and do, have serious consequences such as increased pain, suffering, and mental anguish."
According to the report, patients experience long wait times for surgeries, waiting as long as 41.7 weeks for orthopedic surgery, 32.9 weeks for neurosurgery, and 31.4 weeks for ophthalmology.

"In certain instances, [wait times] can also result in poorer medical outcomes—transforming potentially reversible illnesses or injuries into chronic, irreversible conditions, or even permanent disabilities," the report states. "In many instances, patients may also have to forgo their wages while they wait for treatment, resulting in an economic cost to the individuals themselves and the economy in general."

Fraser points out that previous studies have found the lost economic output in waiting for joint replacement surgery, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, MRI scans, and cataract surgery totaled $14.8 billion in 2007.

The report also notes that 46.3 percent of patients would prefer to have their procedure performed within a week if they had the opportunity to do so.

Sally Pipes, a former Canadian and president of the Pacific Research Institute, said one of the incentives for her to come to America was the growing problem with Canada's health care system.

Pipes's mother, who lived in Canada, died from colon cancer in 2005 because she couldn't get a colonoscopy. She finally received one two weeks before she died when she was hemorrhaging…..

http://freebeacon.com/issues/waiting-times-for-canadas-single-payer-health-care-system-hit-record-high/

[stilldropin20]

Yep, politically he would have gotten the blame. That's how it is if you are POTUS.

You aren't going to want to hear this but... it was the Fed and the Rs in the House.

The Fed through easing of monetary policies (of course QE clobbered wage earners and helped the rich and banks) and the House locking down spending and tax increases to provide certainty to the business community.

The stimulus was largely ineffective - mostly because of what it was spent on.

we'll agree to disagree on your last statement. The stimulus basically saved the economy. It curtailed the halt of services and saved certain industries--mainly the American car manufacturers. Many financial institutions that were taken over by the government have paid back the government with interest. Obama made many shrewd moves in his first term. I know as a conservative, you hate giving credit to Obama for anything, but that was something he was right on. As a matter of fact, the stimulus was too small. It should have been larger.

Yep, let's agree to disagree. IMO, the stimulus didn't save the economy. American car manufactures would have recovered with expedited chapter proceedings but Bush approved the bailout plan and gave GNM and Chrysler the ~ $13.4 billion in financing from TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program). The "financial institution takeover" was not part of the stimulus - and it wasn't well orchestrated either. We even reached out to some banks to take over troubled banks and then penalized them later - that tool won't be available to the next POTUS.

The stimulus didn't accelerate job growth, didn't accelerate GDP growth and is now a bit part of our problem with our finances going forward. It wasn't shrewd. How much faster would the economy be growing today if we didn't have the carrying cost of $6 trillion in debt to contend with? Answer: Plenty.

The financial crisis of 2008 was a massive real estate bubble due to easy money from the Fed, government policies through federal entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that underwrite risky mortgage loans (enabling greedy banks) with near 100% loan guarantees, a Congress and White House that rolled the dice on the housing market. Investors and home owners then got caught up in a speculation frenzy.

Now we're repeating the same inane pre-recession mistakes, with government again guaranteeing 90% of new mortgages, financed with easy money and many low down payment loans. Flat out stupid.

So, you can try to frame it as you will... but you might want to dig in first.

amen. this.

I can elaborate much further on this but i'll keep it quick. but a huge problem is this idea that "everyone" gets to buy a home. and FHA programs. These programs are likely the main driver in the housing market skyrocketting in localized high demand areas as the homes that are not in high demand become MORE in demand as people who dont have the 20% down payment or the reliability are allowed to purchase with 2 and 3% down. Its just too easy to walk away from 2-3% when you need a new roof and your basement floods.

So it wasn't just Bad banks with predatory lending. It was also poor legislature that was far too reaching into the idea that 'everyone" should get a home. No they should not. Work for 5 years and save your 20% down payment money. Value that money. and you wont walk away from it.

another major factor is investment bankers full assault on the real estate market. For example when i used to own 1-2 properties, my cap rates were around 30% (because i know what Im doing). national average was around 9-10% which is way higher than what any harvard grad Goldman Sachs investment banker can do for you in his classy top floor office. So they jumped in to real estate markets in the 90's. over purchased and helped drive up prices as they would acquire 1000's of buildings in all the poor neighborhoods. Update and rent them out. even selling some of them in smaller blocks to armchair investors that I represent who are happy with 9-10% returns.

They all played a roll. Poor Clinton legislation deregulating banking. Greedy wall street investment bankers. Small time investors like me. and mom and pop that want to buy a house they cant afford, which allowed the well-to-do to sell and move to more desired areas.

there was a point in the 2000's that all you had to do was be willing to move. Buy a home (even in a new development suburb), get in early, first house, 2 years later the entire neaighborhood was finished and landscaped and a 300K home would now be worth 500K. Sell it in a day. 200K profit. and as long as you lived there 2 years, the entire 200K would be tax free. So everyone with half a brain was moving (or pretending to move) every 2 years for the better part of the complete decade.

The true driver TO ALL OF THIS though was available credit. central banks making credit available to smaller banks is what drives the entire thing!!!!! Dont ever forget that!!!! and then those same banks making credit available for end users to purchase. we are at the mercy of the central banking system. they create the ups and downs locally in the entire global credit markets. and it used to be one family that decided all of this for hundreds of years. The Rothschilds.

[stilldropin20]

SD, I'm trying not to call you a __ _____, I really am, but you are. What in the f do you think dramatically cutting the corporate tax rate - along with cutting other tax rates - is going to do to the debt that you pretend to care about? Don't say anything other than dramatcally increase it, because anything else is a f'n lie, and you have to be a clown to not know that. Are you a clown? Prove it by answering.

And Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security... these aren't just for the poor and unemployed. Without them, there will be a lot more poor and unemployed. How do you not understand that? Here again, I'm resisting the urge, but it's hard. You know what I think of you right now, right? Look in the mirror and call yourself that for me. Thanks bunches in advance.

Btw, what do you think the elderly are doing? My Mom just turned 85 - she still substitute teaches in public schools and still collects SS because we haven't had imbeciles like Trump in office.

ehhhh.....tyin' to figure out your question.......exactly.....i think you are asking me if cutting taxes will increase the deficit?

In theory, yes. If the GDP is stangant and we remain in the 8 year Obama recession. Yes. You are right. In your vaccuum of little to no growth or even a recession.

However, if growth (GDP) is significant enough that new business is created. You would then create new tax dollars. and Offshore overseas money is repatriated(trillions of it!!!!!) then those taxes even at lower rates creates a ton more revenue.

Remember 21% of something is better than 35% of nothing!!!!!

Trump is betting on himself to get the economy going. and keep it going. So far he's winning. if you havent noticed? oh that's right, CNN wont cover it. GDP is at 3.3%!! 3.9% expected next quarter and perhaps as much as 4-4.1%. Unemployement is at 4.1% 3.9% expected next quarter.

Its working, Dat. Its effin working right now!!!!!!!

We have yet to see the repatriation of those trillions of the offshore wealth. Offshore, huge corporations pay 10-20%. For example, right now, Apple has over 300 billion offshore!!!!!!!!!!!! 3. hundred. effing. billion.!!!!! they pay 10% in ireland. Economic Experts believe corporations like Apple will bring that money back here even at 20-21%. and trump is the guy to call them out if they dont. But at 35-40%??? he cant blame them, yet.

You do understand this position, right? I mean fully? and we can argue how to implement it to best make it work. But this is the plan. The plan is not to just take money away from the poor. at all. the plan is to create even more tax dollars.

So we might not lose a single penny for entitlements. not. a. single. penny. Its a boom vs. bust mentality.

So imo, all these idiot democrats and liberal media are doing is nothing more than attempting to derail the boom. which will bring us back to the bust economy. where we do nothing but borrow into oblivion and end up needing even more money for entitlements as more people lose their jobs.

all for what!!!!!???/So democrats can remain in power!!!!????? why????????? For what??? more entitlements!!!????????

stop the effin insanity!! folks!!! get off your azzes and instead be happy to go to work!!! Its ok to work!!!! you dont need big daddy government's nipple to swuck on!!!!!!!!!you will actually be happier when you work!! mentally and physically healthier!! have more self respect!!!!!!! stick around with the family more!!!! have a healthier relationship with you wife or husband, even your baby n daddy momma will appreciate you more, might even get some side tail from time to time with a few more bucks in your pocket that you actually earned, and do a better job as a parent!!!!!!!You dong might even grow an inch. Mine grew at least 2 when i made my first million. all of which will benefit the kids!!!! so they do NOT grow up on and get too accustomed to big daddy government's nipple and around parents "beaten down" by the "system." Beat the system!!! Engage in society!! have a personal plan for wealth. its not that hard.

Ya know...there is an entirely different paradigm out there. a different way of life. where you make your own damn money. and have enough of it to share with family and friends to help them, the last thing you will want is big daddy government taking out large portions of your check only to inefficiently spend it on go nowhere, non-needle moving entitlements which are not healthy. I grew up with parents that waited for their check each month. They were miserable, they made everyone around them miserable. they never "got out" of it. But all their children. All of us!! BY not doing it the way they did it. 50 effin years later, my mom still waits for that check each month. And is miserable. all because she was never made (or forced) to engage with society in a healthy manner. Always angry, always pissed off, always thinking everything should just be given to her and that life was fair. Well, me and all my brothers and sisters figured out real quick that life aint fair. and did nearly everything different than they did. Starting with engaging in society in a polite fashion and willing to work hard to "earn our keep" along the way.

just my two cents.

Your 2 cents is worth 35% of nothing. Why do you think the CBO said the Senate plan would add 1.4 trillion to the debt over the next decade - and that was before changes were reportedly made that would dramatically increase that number? Committee for a Responsible Federal Government estimated it would be 6 trillion. Is this because they haven't seen your posts? They haven't been exposed to the genius that is you?

And the stuff you put in quotes shows you're not listening. It's all just more irrelevant blubbering blabberings. You have a tendency to do that... a lot. Has anyone mentioned that? Not that you noticed? Btw, not to sound harsh (this time), but do you have any family or close friends? It might help to understand where you're coming from.

so no credit fo rmy side tail joke or your dong growing when you got a little change in your pocket? Tough crowd. Tough crowd indeed.

As for the personal, I dont believe in victims(other than small children). I do believe in the boot strap mentality. I beleive in a daily series of choices that define who we are and what we do and how happy we end up. and I hold people accountable in my life for their actions. I dont really listen to their words so much as I more so pay attention to their actions. I am strong and centered and stand on my own and keep my own counsel. In that regard, i have tons of professional acquaintances(1000's) that i do business with and therefore consider friends. My thought is that if we dont put bread on each other's tables then what are we doing? pretending to be friends? friend do. frenemies talk! And sometimes family is nothing more than a frenemy. I'm ok with that. I dont cry over none if it and in fact, I'm quite happy. Quite content. So much so that i share a path to happiness here with you guys. I would bet every penny I have that I am happier and my approach to life is better and healthier than everyone in this thread. My last dollar. I am so free and so at peace that i dont care what anyone thinks of me. thats true freedom. and it come from an inner confidence and peace built on a foundation of exhilarating happiness defined by a ton of mistakes that i learned from. And most important that has led me down a path where I have people in my life that know the real me (not an agent I created to look good or to impress people) . I show them the real me because I love the real me. I love myself sooooo much. and it has also led me to the love of my life. My soul mate and we've been together 5 years and have an amazing realationship. and yes she reads this stuff and the stuff i put on twitter. lol and laughs at me for doing this. she is like why bother. but then she sees me smirk daily as I'm typing away or talking away and gets it. she sees me enjoying myself. this is fun for me. So Enjoy it while you can folks. I might get bored soon?

[Pointgod]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/fcc-votes-repeal-net-neutrality

In a vote along party lines, the federal government has ended sweeping net-neutrality rules that guaranteed equal access to the internet.

The Thursday vote at the Federal Communications Commission will likely usher in big changes in how Americans use the internet, a radical departure from more than a decade of federal oversight. The move not only rolls back restrictions that keep broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T from blocking or collecting tolls from services they don’t like, but bars states from imposing their own rules.

Customers hate this. Corporations hate this. Democrats hate this. Republicans hate this. The fact that so many opposing forces can agree that repealing net neutrality is horrible decision should tell you something. It’s like when superheros team up with super villains to defeat a world ending threat. Hopefully this gets tied up in lawsuits for years and a new administration can reverse this decision.