Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: President Trump and the Republicans deliver major Tax Cut and Jobs Act

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9502
(9501 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/5/2018 at 12:05 PM
quote:
Meanwhile…

The US economy added 148K jobs in December and manufacturing remains strong.

The unemployment rate held at 4.1%, the lowest rate in more than 17 years. The average hourly earnings increased again.

The jobs numbers come on the heels of a report Thursday from payroll processing firm ADP, which revealed that 250,000 private sector jobs were added in December, up from 185,000 in November.

Since the 2016 presidential election, more than 1.77 million private sector jobs have been created, and average hourly wages for the private sector have increased by 62 cents, or 2.4%.
This is of course prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act becoming law resulting and wages and bonuses surging.



Wow!, what are you gonna do with your .62 cents!

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 68208
(68569 all sites)
Registered: 11/28/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/5/2018 at 01:27 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
The DJI closed at 25,075.13 today.
President Trump keeps delivering for The American People.







Well, for a few of the American people:

"There is, however, an important question I neglected to cover in that last piece: Who benefits from the increase in stock market wealth? Thanks to the work of economist Ed Wolff, who has been compiling such data over many years, we can answer that question.

First, there’s a bit of a myth that through indirect holdings, like holdings of stock in a pension fund, the stock market has become democratized, and everyone’s all in. Not so. Wolff’s data shows that while stock ownership has increased over the past few decades, in 2013 (his most recent data point), less than half — 46 percent — of households owned stocks, either directly or through their holdings in some sort of fund (e.g., a retirement account). Contrast that with the 94 percent ownership rate of the top 1 percent.

But even that 46 percent ownership rate gets misunderstood, because it doesn’t differentiate how much stock is owned by different income classes. Less than a third of all households hold at least $10,000 in stocks, compared to 93 percent of those households in the top 1 percent.

The figures below show that, since the late 1980s, about 80 percent of the value of the market has been held by the top 10 percent. Within that top 10 percent, the share of stock wealth held by the top 1 percent is about equal to the share held by the 90-99th percentiles; both groups’ shares are twice as large as the share that the entire bottom 90 percent holds."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/02/perspective-on- the-stock-market-rally-80-of-stock-value-held-by-top-10/?utm_term=.a69a2b7a 5bdb



"First, there’s a bit of a myth that through indirect holdings, like holdings of stock in a pension fund, the stock market has become democratized, and everyone’s all in. Not so."

The premise of the opinion piece you posted is crap.
There is no factual data in the entire spin piece and the writer is a well known far-left extremist.

The performance of the stock market has a direct effect on the retirement funds of the American People and the stock market has soared since the day Donald Trump was elected.





Your usual.."but the source" bullsh!t argument..... there are plenty of sources that say the same thing:

From Gallup:

Before the 2008 financial crisis, 62% of U.S. adults, on average, said they owned stocks. Since then, the average has been 54%, including lows of 52% in 2013 and 2016. In Gallup's April 2017 update, 54% of Americans report having money invested in stocks.

The stock market lost more than half of its value during the bear market that coincided with the Great Recession and 2008 financial crisis, with many investors responding by taking their money out of the market. Although the stock market has more than made up for those losses, reaching record highs this year, Gallup's data indicate that fewer Americans today are in a position to benefit from those gains.

U.S. stock ownership rates are highly related to income, ranging from 21% among those with an annual household income of less than $30,000 to 89% among those with an income of $100,000 or more. Americans in all income groups below $100,000 are less likely to own stocks than they were from 2001 to 2008. This includes a drop of six percentage points among lower-income households, 13 points among middle-income households (annual income of $30,000 to $74,999) and 10 points among upper-middle-income households (annual income of $75,000 to $99,999).

Given that relatively few Americans in lower-income households invested in stocks before the 2008 financial crisis and upper-income households show no change in ownership, it follows that middle- and upper-middle-income households have largely driven the decline in stock ownership.

Stock ownership also varies by age, perhaps because middle-aged Americans are in their peak earning years. On average, 62% of U.S. adults aged 30 to 64 own stocks, compared with 31% of those aged 18 to 29 and 54% of those aged 65 and older. Older Americans are no less likely now to invest in the stock market than they were from 2001 to 2008, while younger age groups show declines of between seven and 11 percentage points.

This lack of decline among older adults could reflect that the leading edge of baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1952) have moved into the 65+ age category since the 2008 crisis. As a generation, baby boomers -- all of whom were in their prime working years during the economic boom of the 1980s and 1990s, and many of whom likely had 401(k)s at work -- have above-average rates of stock ownership.

Implications

The stock market has performed well in 2017, but proportionately fewer Americans are benefiting from today's bull market than did so in bull markets before the financial crisis. The gains in stock values in recent years seem to have done little to persuade people who may have divested themselves of stocks to get back in the market.

Nor has the recovery encouraged new investors to join the market. Although young adults are understandably less likely than their elders to own stocks, the percentage of 18- to 29-year-olds investing is down 11 points since before the financial crisis.

It appears the financial crisis and recession may have fundamentally changed some Americans' views of stocks as an investment. The collapse in stock values in 2008 and 2009 seems to have left a greater impression on these people than the ongoing bull market that has followed it, as well as research showing the strong historical performance of stocks as a long-term investment.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/211052/stock-ownership-down-among-older-higher- income.aspx

Most people in minimum wage jobs do not have pensions or 401k's - also a lot of people in "small business" also don't have them - and the Trump administration made it harder on them by gutting state IRA programs that would have helped them.

More sources:

http://www.mybudget360.com/stock-market-sham-most-americans-own-no-stocks-w ho-owns-us-wealth/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-econom-stock-market-americans -20171219-story.html

I would post more, but you won't read or understand them anyway......

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4243
(4238 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/5/2018 at 01:36 PM
quote:
The US economy added 148K jobs in December and manufacturing remains strong. The unemployment rate held at 4.1%, the lowest rate in more than 17 years. The average hourly earnings increased again.


This was proven to be false. You have no sources, as usual.

quote:
The jobs numbers come on the heels of a report Thursday from payroll processing firm ADP, which revealed that 250,000 private sector jobs were added in December, up from 185,000 in November.


Obama had better numbers - look it up.

quote:
Since the 2016 presidential election, more than 1.77 million private sector jobs have been created, and average hourly wages for the private sector have increased by 62 cents, or 2.4%.
This is of course prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act becoming law resulting and wages and bonuses surging.


This is a complete lie, and you have no source to back it up. Pathetic.

[Edited on 1/5/2018 by BoytonBrother]

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3817
(3815 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/5/2018 at 03:33 PM
quote:
The Stock Market’s historic rise under President Trump has the over 100 Million Americans that have an IRA or 401K laughing at the lefties.

During the 2016 campaign the Democrats said if Donald Trump is elected the stock market would crash and the economy would tank.

History proves them wrong again.




How is it historic when the rise in the stock market is less than we saw under Obama in his first term? Like I said, I'm happy the stock market has continued its 9 year bull run under Trump. Not sure why you think continued performance is something to scream from the hilltops. I don't think you raved and posted about the similar stock market performance under Obama.

But, what do you think of the surge in coal mining deaths this year? Now that is something that Trump can actually take credit for.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9057
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/5/2018 at 03:40 PM
quote:
quote:The US economy added 148K jobs in December and manufacturing remains strong. The unemployment rate held at 4.1%, the lowest rate in more than 17 years. The average hourly earnings increased again.



This was proven to be false. You have no sources, as usual.


Was proven to be false? The top of the hour news break on the Thom Hartmann show just did a blurb about 148,000 jobs in December and the 4.1% unemployment being the lowest in 17 years. This would be on the Progress Sirius/XM radio station you may be familiar with. Must you be so quick to call everything muleman posts as incorrect?

There are many fresh news stories with all this data:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/05/news/economy/december-2017-jobs-report/inde x.html
http://time.com/5089477/december-jobs-report-2017/

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9057
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/5/2018 at 03:43 PM
quote:
quote:The jobs numbers come on the heels of a report Thursday from payroll processing firm ADP, which revealed that 250,000 private sector jobs were added in December, up from 185,000 in November.



Obama had better numbers - look it up.


What time frame are you comparing?

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9057
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/5/2018 at 03:56 PM
quote:
quote:Since the 2016 presidential election, more than 1.77 million private sector jobs have been created, and average hourly wages for the private sector have increased by 62 cents, or 2.4%.
This is of course prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act becoming law resulting and wages and bonuses surging.



This is a complete lie, and you have no source to back it up. Pathetic.


A complete lie?

Don't really want to do Muleman's work for him, but I had some time so...his source appears to be:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/12/08/us-economy-adds-more-jobs-in- november-than-expected.html

Here's mine, 2 million jobs this year isn't bad, or a lie.

quote:
The U.S. economy added 2 million jobs in 2017, another solid year of gains.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/05/news/economy/december-2017-jobs-report/inde x.html



Wages and bonuses surging...the universe of US corporations is massive, this story offers some insight on a few of the happenings which have been in the news - the overall impact beyond these examples may or may not be minimal. Plenty of speculation both ways.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/business/corporate-tax-cut-bonuses-emplo yees.html

[Edited on 1/5/2018 by nebish]

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9057
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/5/2018 at 04:06 PM
quote:
quote:The Stock Market’s historic rise under President Trump has the over 100 Million Americans that have an IRA or 401K laughing at the lefties.

During the 2016 campaign the Democrats said if Donald Trump is elected the stock market would crash and the economy would tank.

History proves them wrong again.



How is it historic when the rise in the stock market is less than we saw under Obama in his first term? Like I said, I'm happy the stock market has continued its 9 year bull run under Trump. Not sure why you think continued performance is something to scream from the hilltops. I don't think you raved and posted about the similar stock market performance under Obama.

But, what do you think of the surge in coal mining deaths this year? Now that is something that Trump can actually take credit for.


Are you comparing Obama's first term to Trump's first year?

The two periods however are not comparable in the first place since Obama came into office at a much different time than Trump. One could say the market's only had one way to go but up under Obama, although view is that it could've gotten worse.

But Trump stepped into a glorious situation in comparison, as you say a run of growth. Has that growth been fueled by Trump or would we have gotten similar results had Clinton had won? How can we ever know?

Now we blame Trump for more coal mining deaths. This is interesting. To what do you feel compelled to blame this on him for?

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3817
(3815 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/5/2018 at 05:02 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:The Stock Market’s historic rise under President Trump has the over 100 Million Americans that have an IRA or 401K laughing at the lefties.

During the 2016 campaign the Democrats said if Donald Trump is elected the stock market would crash and the economy would tank.

History proves them wrong again.



How is it historic when the rise in the stock market is less than we saw under Obama in his first term? Like I said, I'm happy the stock market has continued its 9 year bull run under Trump. Not sure why you think continued performance is something to scream from the hilltops. I don't think you raved and posted about the similar stock market performance under Obama.

But, what do you think of the surge in coal mining deaths this year? Now that is something that Trump can actually take credit for.


Are you comparing Obama's first term to Trump's first year?

The two periods however are not comparable in the first place since Obama came into office at a much different time than Trump. One could say the market's only had one way to go but up under Obama, although view is that it could've gotten worse.

But Trump stepped into a glorious situation in comparison, as you say a run of growth. Has that growth been fueled by Trump or would we have gotten similar results had Clinton had won? How can we ever know?

Now we blame Trump for more coal mining deaths. This is interesting. To what do you feel compelled to blame this on him for?


We can never know what would have happened under Clinton, but the stock market growth under Trump is a continuation of continued growth for the past 8+ years. It is not exactly historic. I'm giving Trump some credit here, certainly more credit than most on the right gave Obama with similar or better results.

And yes, Trump rolled back safety regulations in the coal industry, and there was a surge in coal mining deaths. Easy to put 2 and 2 together here.

Oh, and Mule was bragging in this thread about 1.77 million new private sector jobs. Well, it is even better than that. 2.1 million new jobs were added in 2017. Sounds good, right? The problem is that that is a 6 year low. There were 2.2 million new jobs added in 2016.

"Over the year [2017], job growth totaled 2.1 million, compared with a gain of 2.2 million in 2016."

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf

And here's a chart of job growth since 2007:

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

2017 showed the slowest job growth rate of the past 6 years. But hey, 1.77 million new jobs sounds great, so let's use that number to brag about how great Trump is doing. But we didn't hear these same people congratulating Obama for adding jobs at a greater rate the previous 5 years. Again, I don't necessarily believe that the economy is doing bad under Trump. If Obama or any other president had these same numbers I wouldn't be complaining. However, I certainly wouldn't trying to convince anyone that the economy is doing better than it has been when the numbers don't reflect that at all.


[Edited on 1/6/2018 by 2112]

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9057
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/5/2018 at 06:51 PM
I think there are some specific points that could be made to tie Trump actions or inactions to some issues in the coal mining deaths, I don't think it is quite easy to put 2 and 2 together.

I read some of the accident reports. The one new hire didn't treat his empty dump bed with de-icing solution before being loaded, despite being told that very morning to do so, then when he went to dump the load it stuck and tipped the truck over, the driver jumped out and later died from his injuries. That isn't Trump's fault, not sure what level of training or workplace inspections could've or would've prevented that.

But another guy with 23 years experience was was working underneath a conveyor belt became tangled in the moving mechanism and was victim of an unfortunate and sad death. There was fencing in the area, but not enough safety guards to prevent a worker from getting directly under the belt to remove the coal dust build up. Inspections could've caught this, but also the worker put himself in a dangerous position to work it - something miners sometimes do on their own, risking themselves to perform a dangerous task.

Again, I don't see enough blame to lay at Trump's feet in guilt on these deaths. But there is enough to question the direction of the administration on the direction of their interest in miner safety.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9057
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/5/2018 at 06:55 PM
Thank you for the links on the labor stats. The first one pdf looks good and I will sort through it. The second link doesn't work however.
 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3817
(3815 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/5/2018 at 08:24 PM
quote:
Thank you for the links on the labor stats. The first one pdf looks good and I will sort through it. The second link doesn't work however.


Not sure why. It worked earlier. How about this?

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9057
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/5/2018 at 10:37 PM
quote:
Not sure why. It worked earlier. How about this?

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth


Yes, that has led me to play with some other charts and tools. Fun to see all the different info these sites have.

I think I may've found an even better one that illustrates your point 2112!

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/nonfarm-payroll-employment-growth-totaled -2-point-2-million-in-2016.htm


Not sure why my CNN Money article did not draw the comparison between the 2016 vs 2017 number? Or point out the streak of 2+ million annual growth we've been experiencing...I mean they are so biased right, why not take this chance to show Obama in a good light and discount the Trump figures - wait, that is what the Whipping Post is for

I like seeing source data shown on your first bls pdf link rather than reading it in a news publication (I mean we know these news links can't be trusted

The annual growth / loss in manufacturing is pretty stark. 2017 saw the sector add 196,000 while 2016 had a 16,000 loss. Retail lost 67,000 in 2017, but had gained 203,000 in 2016. Those are some big swings. As is mining and logging with a gain of 59,000 vs a 2016 loss of 75,000.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3817
(3815 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/6/2018 at 04:49 AM
quote:
quote:
Not sure why. It worked earlier. How about this?

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth


Yes, that has led me to play with some other charts and tools. Fun to see all the different info these sites have.

I think I may've found an even better one that illustrates your point 2112!

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/nonfarm-payroll-employment-growth-totaled -2-point-2-million-in-2016.htm


Not sure why my CNN Money article did not draw the comparison between the 2016 vs 2017 number? Or point out the streak of 2+ million annual growth we've been experiencing...I mean they are so biased right, why not take this chance to show Obama in a good light and discount the Trump figures - wait, that is what the Whipping Post is for

I like seeing source data shown on your first bls pdf link rather than reading it in a news publication (I mean we know these news links can't be trusted

The annual growth / loss in manufacturing is pretty stark. 2017 saw the sector add 196,000 while 2016 had a 16,000 loss. Retail lost 67,000 in 2017, but had gained 203,000 in 2016. Those are some big swings. As is mining and logging with a gain of 59,000 vs a 2016 loss of 75,000.


Let's face it, labor numbers don't make sexy stories for the masses. Most people would rather read about Trump's latest stupid tweet or argue about football players kneeling for the national anthem. The numbers, both stock market increases and jobs numbers, are really a continuation of what has been happening for years, so they are not particularly newsworthy. I only brought this up to respond a claim the the economy is booming since Trump took over. That clearly isn't true. If you are praising Trump over the US economic performance this past year, then you should have been giving credit to Obama for the last 6 years or more. It's no secret here that I dislike Trump, but I'm one who is willing to give credit when it's due. But if someone is touting the stock market and jobs report as some kind of major accomplishment for Trump, then they are just fooling themselves.

[Edited on 1/6/2018 by 2112]

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3817
(3815 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/6/2018 at 01:34 PM
See, case in point this morning. The media would rather focus on Trump's claim that he is a mentally stable genious than discuss his false claim of an economic boom. Trump is the king of distraction.
 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6243
(6242 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/6/2018 at 02:41 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Not sure why. It worked earlier. How about this?

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth


Yes, that has led me to play with some other charts and tools. Fun to see all the different info these sites have.

I think I may've found an even better one that illustrates your point 2112!

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/nonfarm-payroll-employment-growth-totaled -2-point-2-million-in-2016.htm


Not sure why my CNN Money article did not draw the comparison between the 2016 vs 2017 number? Or point out the streak of 2+ million annual growth we've been experiencing...I mean they are so biased right, why not take this chance to show Obama in a good light and discount the Trump figures - wait, that is what the Whipping Post is for

I like seeing source data shown on your first bls pdf link rather than reading it in a news publication (I mean we know these news links can't be trusted

The annual growth / loss in manufacturing is pretty stark. 2017 saw the sector add 196,000 while 2016 had a 16,000 loss. Retail lost 67,000 in 2017, but had gained 203,000 in 2016. Those are some big swings. As is mining and logging with a gain of 59,000 vs a 2016 loss of 75,000.


Let's face it, labor numbers don't make sexy stories for the masses. Most people would rather read about Trump's latest stupid tweet or argue about football players kneeling for the national anthem. The numbers, both stock market increases and jobs numbers, are really a continuation of what has been happening for years, so they are not particularly newsworthy. I only brought this up to respond a claim the the economy is booming since Trump took over. That clearly isn't true. If you are praising Trump over the US economic performance this past year, then you should have been giving credit to Obama for the last 6 years or more. It's no secret here that I dislike Trump, but I'm one who is willing to give credit when it's due. But if someone is touting the stock market and jobs report as some kind of major accomplishment for Trump, then they are just fooling themselves.

[Edited on 1/6/2018 by 2112]


The same is the case with the defeat of ISIS....Trump has done nothing strategically different, really, then what Obama and the DOD, various intelligent services, our allies, etc. began after the initial rise of ISIS. Just as with the economy, stock market, etc. Trump is merely the guy now in the office of President continuing what Obama and to be fair, Congress, began after the 2008 financial mess.

As you said above, the media isn't covering either subject all that much because both examples are really just a continuation of the policies of the previous Congress and the Obama administration. Now, Trump and his supporters won't admit this truth (especially a narcissist like Trump), but I think it's accurate for the most part...



[Edited on 1/6/2018 by Chain]

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9502
(9501 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/6/2018 at 02:55 PM
trump is just riding Obama's coattails. and causing damage to most Americans with his tax-scam/minimum wage jobs act.
 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4199
(4210 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/6/2018 at 04:03 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Not sure why. It worked earlier. How about this?

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth


Yes, that has led me to play with some other charts and tools. Fun to see all the different info these sites have.

I think I may've found an even better one that illustrates your point 2112!

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/nonfarm-payroll-employment-growth-totaled -2-point-2-million-in-2016.htm


Not sure why my CNN Money article did not draw the comparison between the 2016 vs 2017 number? Or point out the streak of 2+ million annual growth we've been experiencing...I mean they are so biased right, why not take this chance to show Obama in a good light and discount the Trump figures - wait, that is what the Whipping Post is for

I like seeing source data shown on your first bls pdf link rather than reading it in a news publication (I mean we know these news links can't be trusted

The annual growth / loss in manufacturing is pretty stark. 2017 saw the sector add 196,000 while 2016 had a 16,000 loss. Retail lost 67,000 in 2017, but had gained 203,000 in 2016. Those are some big swings. As is mining and logging with a gain of 59,000 vs a 2016 loss of 75,000.


Let's face it, labor numbers don't make sexy stories for the masses. Most people would rather read about Trump's latest stupid tweet or argue about football players kneeling for the national anthem. The numbers, both stock market increases and jobs numbers, are really a continuation of what has been happening for years, so they are not particularly newsworthy. I only brought this up to respond a claim the the economy is booming since Trump took over. That clearly isn't true. If you are praising Trump over the US economic performance this past year, then you should have been giving credit to Obama for the last 6 years or more. It's no secret here that I dislike Trump, but I'm one who is willing to give credit when it's due. But if someone is touting the stock market and jobs report as some kind of major accomplishment for Trump, then they are just fooling themselves.

[Edited on 1/6/2018 by 2112]


The same is the case with the defeat of ISIS....Trump has done nothing strategically different, really, then what Obama and the DOD, various intelligent services, our allies, etc. began after the initial rise of ISIS. Just as with the economy, stock market, etc. Trump is merely the guy now in the office of President continuing what Obama and to be fair, Congress, began after the 2008 financial mess.

As you said above, the media isn't covering either subject all that much because both examples are really just a continuation of the policies of the previous Congress and the Obama administration. Now, Trump and his supporters won't admit this truth (especially a narcissist like Trump), but I think it's accurate for the most part...



[Edited on 1/6/2018 by Chain]


Trump defeated ISIS in the same way Harry Truman defeated Japan. Except Truman never bragged about it.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6243
(6242 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/6/2018 at 05:13 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Not sure why. It worked earlier. How about this?

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth


Yes, that has led me to play with some other charts and tools. Fun to see all the different info these sites have.

I think I may've found an even better one that illustrates your point 2112!

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/nonfarm-payroll-employment-growth-totaled -2-point-2-million-in-2016.htm


Not sure why my CNN Money article did not draw the comparison between the 2016 vs 2017 number? Or point out the streak of 2+ million annual growth we've been experiencing...I mean they are so biased right, why not take this chance to show Obama in a good light and discount the Trump figures - wait, that is what the Whipping Post is for

I like seeing source data shown on your first bls pdf link rather than reading it in a news publication (I mean we know these news links can't be trusted

The annual growth / loss in manufacturing is pretty stark. 2017 saw the sector add 196,000 while 2016 had a 16,000 loss. Retail lost 67,000 in 2017, but had gained 203,000 in 2016. Those are some big swings. As is mining and logging with a gain of 59,000 vs a 2016 loss of 75,000.


Let's face it, labor numbers don't make sexy stories for the masses. Most people would rather read about Trump's latest stupid tweet or argue about football players kneeling for the national anthem. The numbers, both stock market increases and jobs numbers, are really a continuation of what has been happening for years, so they are not particularly newsworthy. I only brought this up to respond a claim the the economy is booming since Trump took over. That clearly isn't true. If you are praising Trump over the US economic performance this past year, then you should have been giving credit to Obama for the last 6 years or more. It's no secret here that I dislike Trump, but I'm one who is willing to give credit when it's due. But if someone is touting the stock market and jobs report as some kind of major accomplishment for Trump, then they are just fooling themselves.

[Edited on 1/6/2018 by 2112]


The same is the case with the defeat of ISIS....Trump has done nothing strategically different, really, then what Obama and the DOD, various intelligent services, our allies, etc. began after the initial rise of ISIS. Just as with the economy, stock market, etc. Trump is merely the guy now in the office of President continuing what Obama and to be fair, Congress, began after the 2008 financial mess.

As you said above, the media isn't covering either subject all that much because both examples are really just a continuation of the policies of the previous Congress and the Obama administration. Now, Trump and his supporters won't admit this truth (especially a narcissist like Trump), but I think it's accurate for the most part...



[Edited on 1/6/2018 by Chain]


Trump defeated ISIS in the same way Harry Truman defeated Japan. Except Truman never bragged about it.


Yep....However, Harry Truman had some serious decisions to make near the end. Trump on the other hand, hasn't. Fortunately for us, the Dept. of Defense and others simply continued what was already in place with a few minor changes.

Trump, thankfully, has kept his stupidity, ignorance, and ego in check and allowed the Generals and actual professionals already in charge to continue to implement the strategy the Obama administration had already implemented. I'm convinced Trump's obsession with Generals is the only reason he didn't step in and make a clusterf*ck of things that were already working.

I think this obsession with Generals has something to do with his having dodged the draft numerous times and avoided service in Vietnam. Seriously, it's a guilt thing that is exacerbated by his myriad of other mental health issues.

[Edited on 1/6/2018 by Chain]

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9057
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/7/2018 at 09:32 AM
You could be right about him not serving and why he likes to elevate generals and former military to key positions. Or it could just be he lacks a good inner circle he can trust, and rightfully so - I mean what we have seen and heard about the dysfunction from within. That is one disadvantage to the outsider, they lack the contacts and the personnel to rely. Without those relationships of trust and like minded people to surround one with, who do you turn to? Military officers have the background of competence and confidence plus a respect for authority and trust and team player mentality that would be hard to otherwise find for somebody trying to pick people to work with an outsider President. I think I might seek out and defer to people like that as well more often than not.
 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9057
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/7/2018 at 09:36 AM
Do none of you see any difference from Obama to now in terms of economic growth or fighting ISIS?

You have the expectation, anticipation and reaction to the tax cuts. That would not have existed under Obama.

You have a stepped up and still restrained, but more aggressive approach in Iraq and Syria vs ISIS.

Things were heading this direction before, yes, but I do think this White House and administration has been able to take it further in a positive way.

 

Peach Master



Karma:
Posts: 727
(731 all sites)
Registered: 8/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/7/2018 at 10:30 AM
It is impossible for me to see the government selling out the future national debit crisis to allow lower corporate income tax rates as a positive for the future of our country.

Cutting social security to help offset the growth in the national debit created by lower tax revenue means individuals are paying back the tax cut.

Also, the individual income tax rates expire (if you assume a second Trump administration related term) just in time for someone other than a Trump administration to have to deal with them. The corporate cuts do not expire.

Also never in my life did I wake up with fear that I would hear about a nuclear strike on the morning news.

 

____________________
Disclaimer:

The thoughts in this post are merely or nearly the thoughts or lack there of, of the author. He fully accepts or denies responsibility for those thoughts or lack there of. He sincerely hopes that you take them seriously or don't.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3817
(3815 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/7/2018 at 02:06 PM
quote:
Do none of you see any difference from Obama to now in terms of economic growth or fighting ISIS?

You have the expectation, anticipation and reaction to the tax cuts. That would not have existed under Obama.

You have a stepped up and still restrained, but more aggressive approach in Iraq and Syria vs ISIS.

Things were heading this direction before, yes, but I do think this White House and administration has been able to take it further in a positive way.


In a word, no. The anticipation of a tax cut and less regulation may have helped certain industries somewhat, but that was probably equalized by the damage caused by anticipation of the end of net neutrality and other threats to decrease funding to states he doesn't like, and the contractors who depend on that funding. For every added coal mining job added probably equals a job loss in the green energy field.

To believe that Trump's policies spurred growth, you are basically saying all positive trends over the last 6 years were going to suddenly reverse without him. I don't buy that.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5563
(5572 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/7/2018 at 02:46 PM
quote:
It is impossible for me to see the government selling out the future national debit crisis to allow lower corporate income tax rates as a positive for the future of our country.

Cutting social security to help offset the growth in the national debit created by lower tax revenue means individuals are paying back the tax cut.

Also, the individual income tax rates expire (if you assume a second Trump administration related term) just in time for someone other than a Trump administration to have to deal with them. The corporate cuts do not expire.

Also never in my life did I wake up with fear that I would hear about a nuclear strike on the morning news.



There is no "cutting social security" in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act or in any policy proposal by President Trump or The Republicans.

That lie comes from the corrupt liberal media.

The "the individual income tax rates expire" portion of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is required but I will bet you not one of the lefties here can say where that requirement comes from.




 

Peach Master



Karma:
Posts: 727
(731 all sites)
Registered: 8/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/7/2018 at 05:23 PM
Budget reconciliation comes from the Byrd act.

Why were individual cuts the ones to expire in the bill instead of an increase in corporate taxes if needed to meet reconciliation?

If trickle down doesn't work, individuals will be worse off. Retired individuals on fixed income who aren't impacted by the theory of trickle down will be worse off.

Are corporates going to restate the retirement benefits to those on fixed income to offset the expiration of the individual tax cut, while the corporation has a windfall?

 

____________________
Disclaimer:

The thoughts in this post are merely or nearly the thoughts or lack there of, of the author. He fully accepts or denies responsibility for those thoughts or lack there of. He sincerely hopes that you take them seriously or don't.

 
<<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com