Trump

You voted for hildebeest. Nothing can top that for hilarity.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Nah
didnt vote for her
just responding to someone saying "the PEOPLE PICKED TRUMP"
cause they did not, they voted for her
the electoral college voted for trump


try to keep up
And for the umpteenth time - the electoral college is all that matters.
The electoral college represents the American people.
They picked the best President ever - Trump.
Get it now?????


Nah
didnt vote for her
just responding to someone saying "the PEOPLE PICKED TRUMP"
cause they did not, they voted for her
the electoral college voted for trump


try to keep up Originally Posted by timmystool
lustylad's Avatar
Go easy on timmy stool, Ellen.

He's one of those people Ben Franklin had in mind when he said "It's a Republic, ma'am - if you can keep it!"
I B Hankering's Avatar
Nah
didnt vote for her
just responding to someone saying "the PEOPLE PICKED TRUMP"
cause they did not, they voted for her
the electoral college voted for trump


try to keep up
Originally Posted by timmystool
The Electoral College worked precisely as the Founding Fathers intended reflecting the interests of a wide range of people across the great expanse that is the United States of America and not the views of the unwise, misguided and misled masses collected in a few places. You need to read the Constitution to get to the starting line let alone keep up. hildebeest lost, btw.
Nah
didnt vote for her
just responding to someone saying "the PEOPLE PICKED TRUMP"
cause they did not, they voted for her
the electoral college voted for trump


try to keep up Originally Posted by timmystool

Still smarting from the fact that the hildebeest lost?


Let me get this straight: You're imploring Hankering to "try to keep up?"


Timmy, given the stuff you post, you don't wear condescension well. It's just not a good look for you.


Capisci?
lustylad's Avatar
The Electoral College worked precisely as the Founding Fathers intended reflecting the interests of a wide range of people across the great expanse that is the United States of America and not the views of the unwise, misguided and misled masses collected in a few places. You need to read the Constitution to get to the starting line let alone keep up. hildebeest lost, btw. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Still smarting from the fact that the hildebeest lost?

Let me get this straight: You're imploring Hankering to "try to keep up?"

Timmy, given the stuff you post, you don't wear condescension well. It's just not a good look for you.

Capisci? Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

Heh... heh... heh!


dilbert firestorm's Avatar
The Electoral College worked precisely as the Founding Fathers intended reflecting the interests of a wide range of people across the great expanse that is the United States of America and not the views of the unwise, misguided and misled masses collected in a few places. You need to read the Constitution to get to the starting line let alone keep up. hildebeest lost, btw. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

speaking of the electoral college.


what would it look like if we didn't have one? there a few examples. most of the U.S. states have elections that are popular vote based.



lets take a look at 3 states. California (north California), Illinois (excluding Chicago) and Washington (east Washington).


what do all 3 states have in common? theres a movement to secede from a blue state. most of the money goes to the big cities in those states, leaving crumbs to the rural cities and they are not happy with the service either.
adav8s28's Avatar
Trump inherited a great economy. Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. Originally Posted by themystic
+1


The reputards just can't handle the truth. Obama cleaned up the mess that Bush43 and Dick Cheney left behind and got the USA out of the steepest recession since the Great Depression of 1929'.
The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
+1


The reputards just can't handle the truth. Obama cleaned up the mess that Bush43 and Dick Cheney left behind and got the USA out of the steepest recession since the Great Depression of 1929'. Originally Posted by adav8s28
BAHHAAAAAAA

WRONG!

but keep posting that lie all you want. we all know the truth.
like FDR and the Great Depression, Obama actually stalled out recovery post 2008.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/briando.../#38f8eeef6076


The Worst Economic Crisis Since When?

Brian Domitrovic Contributor

Swell Gross Domestic Product report the other day. The economy shrank by a tenth of a point. Shrank. We’re supposed to be recovering from a very low base, the Great Recession and all that. We can’t even get a positive number?

Negative quarterly GDP used to never happen. From late 1982 through 2000, it occurred twice, two dips in succession in 1990-91. But for 32 quarters in a row before late 1990, and for 39 in succession after early 1991, the GDP reports were all positive. Then from 2001 till 2008, we had another run of 25 consecutive positive quarters.

Since 2008? Six down quarters. Three of them under President Bush, three under Obama. We only had four down increments total from 1982-2007, a quarter century. That’s one of the reasons we call that notable period “The Great Moderation.”

This rough beast we’ve been enduring since 2008 surely must be “the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression”—as President Obama put it in his interminable stump speech of campaign 2012.

Certainly the “Great Recession” has no precedent since 1982. But before then? There were five down quarters in the brutal recession of 1980-82, as there were in the recession that gave “stagflation” its name, 1973-75. And in both 1973-75 and 1980-82, there was mammoth inflation, on the order of 25-30%.

The worst these periods saw in terms of “free-fall” (we always hear that the economy was in “free-fall” when this president took office in 2009) was about 2.6%. After the fifth negative quarter of the Great Recession, five months into Obama’s term, the total decline was 4.6%.

Then again, GDP fell 14% after World War II, from 1944 to 1947, a period comfortably after the Great Depression of the 1930s. And from 1956-60, there were six quarters of GDP declines along with a trough at one point of 3.7%.

What case is there that ours is the worst downturn since the Great Depression? If you look at 2008-09, the locus classicus of the Great Recession, you see no more quarterly GDP declines than in any number of pre-Great Moderation recessions. The trough in ’09 was a little deeper than in the other cases, though not by much, but only going back to 1944-47, as opposed to the Great Depression.

Moreover, the stagflation-era recessions of the 1970s and 1980s, while slightly more moderate in terms of the growth losses, had the nasty side effect of inflation, which has been absent in our own time. Can you imagine if our 25 million under- and unemployed throughout this crisis had to deal with double-digit inflation every year? There might have been a government-cheese boom—as there was in the great recession of the early 1980s.

The case that the 2008-09 event was the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression is not strong. There is not a compelling reason to say it was worse than 1973-75 or 1980-82. Certain of its hallmarks were also present in 1956-60. And the GDP drop after World War II was far bigger than the one we recently endured. Its saving grace was that the decline was largely confined government spending, with the real sector recovering well.

And yet…there is something about the crisis of our own day that is especially bad. It has lasted so long. The five down quarters came and went quickly, in a six quarter span, 2008-2009. What then followed was uniquely poor: three-and-a-half years of 2.0% growth. In the three-and-a-half years after both the 1973-75 and 1980-1982 runs of five negative quarters, growth was 5.1%. Growth was also as big after the deep recessions of the late 1940s and 1950s.

Considering in sum the Great Recession of 2008-09 along with the recovery that has ensued, it is correct to say that it’s been the worst downturn since the Great Depression. However, there was no reason to say this before President Obama was well into his term of office. 2008-09 was too similar to any number of experiences since the 1930s.

Only when Obama’s recovery generated such weak numbers quarter after quarter beginning in summer 2009, culminating now in a negative quarter in an apparent season of expansion, did it become tenable to call our experience inferior to any since the Great Depression. That the president made this his tag line on the stump last year, implying that he had nothing to do with causing the problem, that the whole thing was “inherited,” was quite a play. For the worst downturn since the Great Depression only became so with Obamanomics.
adav8s28's Avatar
You are certainly correct in looking at % increase of net income to families is just one way to look at the impact of the tax reform package on this country.

Most sources of information conclude that corporations, despite their windfall profits from the tax reform, did little other than buy back stock. They did not invest in new production facilities. They, for the most part, did not create new jobs. They, for the most part, did not give back to the workers.

"The Republican tax reform package that was supposed to raise wages and spur hiring has instead funded a record stock buyback and dividend spree, benefiting investors and company executives over workers.

"More than 70 percent of this [tax cut] will be returned to workers," said White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders at a January press conference after the bill came into effect.

However, companies have instead used the extra cash to spend billions of dollars buying back their own stock, boosting the value of shares held by investors. Buybacks reduce the number of shares on the market, immediately increasing the value of the shares that investors already hold.

Over the past year, S&P 500 companies have given their shareholders a record $1 trillion in the form of buybacks and dividends, led by Apple, Cisco Systems, and other technology giants."


And this at a cost of $1.5 trillion to the deficit.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...mounts-n886621 Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
+1,000,000


Excellant post Speedracer, you nailed it. Most of the Corporate tax savings has gone for stock buy backs. The Federal Budget deficit has gone from 580 billion to over a trillion.
+1,000,000


Excellant post Speedracer, you nailed it. Most of the Corporate tax savings has gone for stock buy backs. The Federal Budget deficit has gone from 580 billion to over a trillion. Originally Posted by adav8s28
And the corporate tax cuts had NOTHING to do with this...GOTCHA!!
https://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2...s-49-year-low/
adav8s28's Avatar
BAHHAAAAAAA

WRONG!

but keep posting that lie all you want. we all know the truth.
like FDR and the Great Depression, Obama actually stalled out recovery post 2008.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/briando.../#38f8eeef6076


The case that the 2008-09 event was the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression is not strong. There is not a compelling reason to say it was worse than 1973-75 or 1980-82. Certain of its hallmarks were also present in 1956-60. And the GDP drop after World War II was far bigger than the one we recently endured. Its saving grace was that the decline was largely confined government spending, with the real sector recovering well.

And yet…there is something about the crisis of our own day that is especially bad. It has lasted so long. The five down quarters came and went quickly, in a six quarter span, 2008-2009. What then followed was uniquely poor: three-and-a-half years of 2.0% growth. In the three-and-a-half years after both the 1973-75 and 1980-1982 runs of five negative quarters, growth was 5.1%. Growth was also as big after the deep recessions of the late 1940s and 1950s.




[/I][/B] Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
The compelling reason would be in 1973-1975 or 1980-1982 or any other time period did you have the Investment Banks and Commercial Banks as well as the American Auto industry going bankrupt at the same time.

Wall street investment banks Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were both ranked in the top 10 in the world. Both of these banks went bankrupt in 2008 and no longer exist. Merrile Lynch, CityGroup, Chase Bank, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, AIG and the American Auto industry (General Motors, Chrysler), just to name a couple of "troubled assets" that were all going Bankrupt at the same time. There were hundreds of troubled assets that got bailed out by team Obama. I disagree with your guy. The case can be made. These Tarp loans that all these companies received were not paid back in a week you know. Let's not forget that AIG received a record 225 Billion dollars in tarp money to get themselves profitable again.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t...ogram-tarp.asp
The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
The compelling reason would be in 1973-1975 or 1980-1982 or any other time period did you have the Investment Banks and Commercial Banks as well as the American Auto industry going bankrupt at the same time.

Wall street investment banks Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were both ranked in the top 10 in the world. Both of these banks went bankrupt in 2008 and no longer exist. Merrile Lynch, CityGroup, Chase Bank, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, AIG and the American Auto industry (General Motors, Chrysler), just to name a couple of "troubled assets" that were all going Bankrupt at the same time. There were hundreds of troubled assets that got bailed out by team Obama. I disagree with your guy. The case can be made. These Tarp loans that all these companies received were not paid back in a week you know. Let's not forget that AIG received a record 225 Billion dollars in tarp money to get themselves profitable again. Originally Posted by adav8s28
blame it on the real culprits. Clinton and Sandy Weill. he pushed for repeal of Glass-Steagall and Willy Jeffy Blythe signed it. this lit the fuse for all the players you mention to slowly implode themselves. if you ask me they all should have been left to fail.

what did Obama do with the TARP money Bush Jr allowed him to keep and spend?

NOTHING.

one word sums up Obama's TARP money spent ... wait for it ...

Solyndra

http://fortune.com/2015/08/27/rememb...yndra-mistake/


BAHHAHAHAHAAAA
adav8s28's Avatar
And the corporate tax cuts had NOTHING to do with this...GOTCHA!!
https://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2...s-49-year-low/ Originally Posted by bb1961
No GOTCHA at all. Obama got the unemployment rate down to 4.7% before he left office. Trump has moved it 1.1% to 3.6%. Obama had already done most of the work. The USA was out of the recession when Trump took over. The USA is borrowing money from China to pay for those Tax cuts. The federal budget deficit has been increased back to over a Trillion dollars.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.65e8a5e4699e

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u...eficit-3305783
gfejunkie's Avatar
It only took 2 years for Trump to get GDP back over 3%. Something Obama couldn't do in 8.