Its a bonding moment. I only know one skank that is actually a Trump supporter Originally Posted by themysticAww that's so childish, almost innocent in fact. You actually believe a provider is telling you the truth. Bet they praise you as a lover and comment on your package. Wink Wink.
Mystic, I didn't say it did. Economic growth, wage growth, and employment growth are more important. However, I suspect that your figures do not include stocks held by pension and other retirement funds. Add that to the "less than 50% of Americans" who own stock and it's significant. To the extent that higher share prices reflect higher corporate earnings, which should correlate with a better economy (i.e. higher wages, more jobs, more investment in the private sector), they're good for all. Originally Posted by Tinyactually they do include those stocks held by pensions funds etc. unlike some I applaud a good economy. I would rather have a good economy under trump than a bad economy under a democrat. Having said that I would rather have good moral character over bad moral character. wood I take good moral character and bad economy over bad oral character and a good economy? give me the bad economy. Ive been on that operating table with lots of money in the bank. didn't mean much to me
actually they do include those stocks held by pensions funds etc. unlike some I applaud a good economy. I would rather have a good economy under trump than a bad economy under a democrat. Having said that I would rather have good moral character over bad moral character. wood I take good moral character and bad economy over bad oral character and a good economy? give me the bad economy. Ive been on that operating table with lots of money in the bank. didn't mean much to me Originally Posted by themysticWe've discussed the Central Provident Fund in Singapore, which funds retirement and healthcare. They give people the option of putting part of their savings in stocks. I'd like to see something like that in the USA in place of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. That would increase share ownership and also help the guy who's on the operating table with money in the bank.
We've discussed the Central Provident Fund in Singapore, which funds retirement and healthcare. They give people the option of putting part of their savings in stocks. I'd like to see something like that in the USA in place of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. That would increase share ownership and also help the guy who's on the operating table with money in the bank. Originally Posted by TinyI absolutely agree with that. However, even the mention of it gets shrieked off the table by the left.
We've discussed the Central Provident Fund in Singapore, which funds retirement and healthcare. They give people the option of putting part of their savings in stocks. I'd like to see something like that in the USA in place of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. That would increase share ownership and also help the guy who's on the operating table with money in the bank. Originally Posted by TinySo how does that equate to the new breed of hate politics that has become acceptable
So how does that equate to the new breed of hate politics that has become acceptable Originally Posted by themysticMystic, This idea would unify Americans in hate. Most Republican and Democratic politicians would hate it, as it would more than double government mandated employer and employee contributions for government funded retirement and healthcare. The Democrats would really hate it because it doesn't cater to the fallacy that the wealthy make enough income to pay for retirement and healthcare for all Americans. The drug companies and the insurance companies would hate it because for the first time in a long time there would be a free market and competition in healthcare, except for catastrophic illnesses for which government insurance would kick in. And while there would be exceptions like eccielover (I think) and me, most Americans like living hand to mouth existences and saving zip for retirement and emergencies. They'd be forced to save with this.
There is a reason why over 65 million Americans voted for Obama not once but twice, eight years of Bush and Dick Cheney was eight years too much.Like the first four years of Reagan...followed by the LARGEST land slide in history...real true conservatism sell every time and we haven't had that since.
Originally Posted by adav8s28
Like the first four years of Reagan...followed by the LARGEST land slide in history...real true conservatism sell every time and we haven't had that since.
Look at the map of the country...https://www.redbubble.com/people/arc...xoCECIQAvD_BwE
You'll most likely NEVER see something like that AGAIN!!
I don't want to fail to mention Nixon 72'(Republican)
https://www.270towin.com/1972_Election/
His second election was a TOTAL and COMPLETE mandate of true Conservative principles which no left wing President can or has ever immulated!!
Immulated??https://www.thoughtco.com/landslide-...-votes-3367489
To be clear, I voted for Reagan twice. But the fact is that in 1936 FDR, a rather left wing Democrat, beat Alf Landon 531 electoral votes to 8. Reagan's electoral vote victory in 1984 was 525-13. Reagan got 59% of the popular vote and FDR 61%. So your last statement is incorrect. And your statement that Reagan's 1984 win was the largest land slide in history is incorrect.
However, I think Reagan's margin of victory in 1984 will not be duplicated in a long, long time, if ever, by either party. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
