trump the traitor

Not according to CBS...



Oh, ye of little faith!

Thank you, President Trump...



If you need a detailed list of accomplishments try this (Thanks to the OP)...

https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...87&postcount=1 Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Has anybody done the math to figure out how much tax you will pay under the old and new tax rates? It looks like my taxes will go down about $1000 in 2018. Not great but not bad either.

The FACT still is that the main beneficiaries of the new tax plan are corporations and the wealthy. Middle class tax payers will get a little break. Do the math.

According to polls, and I agree polls are always suspect, most people don't care if there is a tax break or not. I don't care. That little bit of extra income is not going to make a difference in my life. Keep the money, bring down the deficit, put the money to better use such as fixing the infrastructure of this country or improving education.

As far as Trump's accomplishments and how they are seen, let's wait until next November's elections and see how the voters view his accomplishment.

The FACT still is that the main beneficiaries of the new tax plan are corporations and the wealthy. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Yeah. The ones who do all the hiring. More money, more hiring.

Now for the bad news... Mueller may have hit a land mine...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ler/965396001/

And giving out bonuses too!

Yeah. The ones who do all the hiring. More money, more hiring.

Now for the bad news... Mueller may have hit a land mine...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ler/965396001/ Originally Posted by gfejunkie

And giving out bonuses too! Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Well it's easy to give people bonuses when this is what you are planning to do:

http://www.newsweek.com/christmas-at...s-trump-758391

Oh and experts have said that companies are going to buy back their stock with the profits. Which makes sense because the companies have been sitting on record profits and not hiring more so why would they do it now? This tax cut brings the effective rate to what most companies pay already. They will hire, but it will be more lawyers to ensure they pay an even lower rate. And they will buy back their stocks, making the stock market look incredible and sell shares at a higher price and make more profit. It's great for those workers getting $18 dollars more when these companies are making millions more. What a gift to the middle class.

Yeah. The ones who do all the hiring. More money, more hiring. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

That has not been true in the past.

"Just 14% of CEOs surveyed by Yale University said their companies plan to make large, immediate capital investments in the United States if the tax overhaul passes. Capital investments, like building plants and upgrading equipment, can lead to hiring."

"The findings, along with other surveys, suggest that the tax plan may not have the dramatic impact on jobs that President Trump and Republicans in Congress have promised."

"Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, who leads the Yale CEO Summit, called the idea of a jobs boom from the tax plan "a lot of smoke and mirrors," especially because the unemployment rate is just 4.1% and companies already have plenty of cash to make investments."

"Wall Street expects companies will use a big chunk of the tax savings to reward shareholders with fatter dividends and stock buybacks, which makes stocks more attractive. That's one reason stocks have surged all year, putting the Dow in sight of 25,000."

"Markets just love it," Michael Block, chief market strategist at Rhino Trading Partners, wrote in a note on Tuesday.

He said it's "malarkey" to think that cutting corporate taxes will boost spending and wages.

"As we've seen in history, this doesn't raise wages," he wrote. "What it does lead to is richer shareholders."

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/19/inve...vey/index.html

So don't expect corporations to give their increased earnings to their employees, and don't expect a hiring surge.

That has not been true in the past.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Your optimism sucks.

Mine doesn't.

As unemployment diminishes (and it has) corporations will have to become more competitive. Higher salaries. Better packages. You'll see. Plus, if you are invested in a 401k or similar retirement program (as I would hope most of the middle class is) guess what? You're a shareholder!

Looks like a win-win to me.

Which makes sense because the companies have been sitting on record profits and not hiring more so why would they do it now? Originally Posted by Austin Dude

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because they're needed. Here's 18 of them...

https://www.glassdoor.com/blog/compa...housands-2018/

If you say that's just a drop in the bucket, I'd probably have to agree with you. I'm sure 18 companies is just scratching the surface of those who will be hiring next year. "By the thousands."

2018 is certainly starting off as a banner year for the entire economy. Not just the middle class.

The dimretards sure missed the boat on this one. They won't be able to stake a claim to any of it this Fall.

Poor babies.

Your optimism sucks.

Mine doesn't.

As unemployment diminishes (and it has) corporations will have to become more competitive. Higher salaries. Better packages. You'll see. Plus, if you are invested in a 401k or similar retirement program (as I would hope most of the middle class is) guess what? You're a shareholder!

Looks like a win-win to me. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

No, I, and most economists, do not share your optimism. I do not believe politicians, especially Donald Trump, when they are searching for reasons to gain support for the tax reform bill. I cited one article that supports my viewpoint that the tax cut will not lead to a surge in economic growth. I can cite MANY more that say the same thing. Meanwhile, you offer your OPINION, which is shared by Republicans in Congress and hard line Trump supporters. How about citing an independent source that shares your optimism. Forbes?

Here is another article I quickly found on the subject:

What does it mean? Most economists believe the bill will provide a boost to the US economy in the short-term. But the size and length of that boost may not be what Republicans have promised.


The Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper in Congress, said the bill would boost growth the total size of the US GDP by 0.8 percentage points over the first 10 years the bill was passed. That breaks down to boost of around 0.08 percentage points of added to the GDP growth rate per year.


Goldman Sachs estimated that GDP growth would increase 0.3 percentage points above their baseline in 2018 and 2019. The analysts for the Penn-Wharton Budget Model said the annual boost would be between 0.06 points and 0.12 points.


Even the Tax Foundation, which typically is aggressive in its growth assumptions for tax cuts, said that the final bill will boost GDP growth by just 0.35 percentage point in 2018 — and that the effect would diminish in later years.


Nearly every analysis said the economic impact would fade. Goldman said the increased GDP could dissipate after 2020 and then actually become a drag on the economy. The JCT said that wouldn't happen until the second decade.


Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...income-2017-12

I do not believe

Most economists believe

Goldman Sachs estimated

The analysts for the Penn-Wharton Budget Model said the annual boost would .

Even the Tax Foundation said that the final bill will

Nearly every analysis said the economic impact would

Goldman said the increased GDP could

The JCT said that wouldn't

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And YOU'RE calling ME out for offering MY OPINION???

You offer nothing BUT "OPINIONS".

What's next? Your crystal ball?

And, who would have their finger on the pulse of hiring more than Glassdoor? They're already recruiting for "Jobs, jobs, jobs!" Thousands of them!

And YOU'RE calling ME out for offering MY OPINION???

You offer nothing BUT "OPINIONS".

What's next? Your crystal ball?

And, who would have their finger on the pulse of hiring more than Glassdoor? They're already recruiting for "Jobs, jobs, jobs!" Thousands of them! Originally Posted by gfejunkie

I offer opinions and try to back them up with others who are considered experts in their field, in this case economics. In this case I cited 2 articles supporting my opinion. You offer opinions with absolutely no support. Take it for what it is worth. You disagree with what is written by economists on the subject so you dismiss them.

Glassdorr? Those job search sites are a dime a dozen. Have you tried to get a job through them? Yes, there are jobs out there, thousands of them, and very few qualified people to fill them or they'd be filled. That is the main reason why no one should expect MORE jobs to open up. Companies that are looking to hire professionals can't find people to fill the jobs.

We'll find out fairly soon who is more correct. Say next November.

We'll find out fairly soon who is more correct. Say next November. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Oh, we'll find out long before then, you nattering nabob of negativism.

Three+ straight quarters of 3+% GDP growth will prove me right and you wrong by then. Before the tax and jobs bill we were already well on our way. I expect that to do nothing but accelerate. 4% GDP is well within reach.

“Frankly there is absolutely no collusion…Virtually every Democrat has said there is no collusion. There is no collusion…I think it’s been proven that there is no collusion…I can only tell you that there is absolutely no collusion…There’s been no collusion…There was no collusion. None whatsoever…everybody knows that there was no collusion. I saw Dianne Feinstein the other day on television saying there is no collusion [note: not true]…The Republicans, in terms of the House committees, they come out, they’re so angry because there is no collusion…there was collusion on behalf of the Democrats. There was collusion with the Russians and the Democrats. A lot of collusion…There was tremendous collusion on behalf of the Russians and the Democrats. There was no collusion with respect to my campaign…But there is tremendous collusion with the Russians and with the Democratic Party…I watched Alan Dershowitz the other day, he said, No. 1, there is no collusion, No. 2, collusion is not a crime, but even if it was a crime, there was no collusion. And he said that very strongly. He said there was no collusion…There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime. But there’s no collusion…when you look at all of the tremendous, ah, real problems [Democrats] had, not made-up problems like Russian collusion.“
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.7d33a9e6b271

It's his new favorite word. The collusion must be worse than any of us believe if he has to project his innocence this much.
The more he denies it, the more true is seems to be.
Trump is a pathological liar. He's a conman. The more he tries to sell something, the more rotten it usually turns out to be.

It's his new favorite word. The collusion must be worse than any of us believe if he has to project his innocence this much.
The more he denies it, the more true is seems to be. Originally Posted by Observing

Wow! Who needs evidence? It just "seems to be" true. I mean, golly gee, the guy ACTS so guilty, doesn't he? Denial is tantamount to guilt! I mean, he MUST be guilty of something!

We'll keep all of the above in mind the next time you get arrested! Maybe judges should rely on their feelings about what seems to be true when they decide cases.

You do realize you're setting yourself up for a mega disappointment, right? Better stock up on anti-depressants.

When someone tells you that minorities turned out in higher percentages than non minorities in an election, don’t argue with them. Don’t read any further. That alone tells you that they are not going to say anything logical. In what world is 29% higher than 66%? Maybe that person wanted to say voted at higher rate, but when you are trying to be the smartest person in the room, don’t mess up on something crucial. Turnout means the number of people voting and 66% > 29%.

But let’s not let stupid people spread lies. Originally Posted by Austin Dude

Surely you wouldn't be stupid enough to call Jason Riley stupid, would you millsy?

You really shouldn't blame others for your reading comprehension deficit, millsy. Saying a certain demographic group turned out to vote in higher percentages than another one is not the same as reporting what their share of the total vote was. Now go back and read that again... slowly.

In Alabama, a higher percentage of eligible black voters (roughly 41%) than eligible white voters (only 35%) went to the polls in the recent Senate election. That's according to preliminary exit polls. In what world is 41% not greater than 35%?

Blacks accounted for 29% of all votes cast, but that is entirely different from their turnout rate. Jason Riley didn't mention any 66% number.

Being a dimotard, you get a pass for not understanding basic math. But you don't get a pass for calling others stupid while putting your own ignorance on display.

Wow! Who needs evidence? It just "seems to be" true. I mean, golly gee, the guy ACTS so guilty, doesn't he? Denial is tantamount to guilt! I mean, he MUST be guilty of something!

We'll keep all of the above in mind the next time you get arrested! Maybe judges should rely on their feelings about what seems to be true when they decide cases.

You do realize you're setting yourself up for a mega disappointment, right? Better stock up on anti-depressants. Originally Posted by lustylad

Did you read the "interview"?

The interview is incoherent and shows a complete lack of self awareness. Trump demonstrates he doesn't understand any of the topics in front of him and he's completely delusional about everything: his effectiveness, the size of his base, his legislative accomplishments.
Giving an incoherent, impromptu and embarrassing interview that he later preens over is like the most quintessentially Trump thing ever.

In a 30-minute interview, President Trump made 24 false or misleading claims.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.1997519aecf8