|
Post by Kzach on Feb 16, 2020 0:01:45 GMT
He is talking about Trump's goals, moron They aren't laudable and shouldn't make any base happy. Right. Those stupid employed base should want to be unemployed rather than have Trump as President. A good chunk of those who supported him did so because they were financially strapped and the Democrat and Republican regulars were fucking them in the ass instead of helping them. You confuse "goal" and "coincidence". The economy is doing fine in spite of Trump.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 16, 2020 3:45:10 GMT
Tell the farmers and coal miners how good the economy and job market is. And the stock market doesn't matter to 90 percent of America.
Now Trumpinsky wants to fuck with medicare, social security and medicade. He also wants to cut food stamps and all of the social programs that help the poor and middle class. Just so he and his buddies can have their tax cut.
News flash, his policies aren't that great.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 16, 2020 4:36:28 GMT
Tell the farmers and coal miners how good the economy and job market is. And the stock market doesn't matter to 90 percent of America. And Clinton would have been better for those she deliberately and to their faces said "I'm putting you all out of work"? Every politician wants to fuck with them. Something has to go. A stronger economy and lowered unemployment means less people need the social safety net. It won't be impacting the elderly, just those 130% above the national poverty line. Oh no. Who do you think you're arguing with? Someone who supports Trump? No, you're arguing with someone who keeps rubbing your nose in why Trump won and why he'll win again and you keep screeching out "NO! ORANGEMANBAD!" instead of paying attention and trying to get your side (the Democrats and Lefties) to pay the fuck attention, shift their stupidity, and maybe go for the win in November instead of continuing to campaign hard for another four years of Trump. And Bloomberg wooing Hilary to be his VP running mate? Guaranteed four more years.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Feb 16, 2020 8:24:18 GMT
Do you honestly believe that anything Trump does is altruistic? How is that relevant to what people believed when they voted for him or what they may believe now?
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Feb 16, 2020 8:27:46 GMT
Tell the farmers and coal miners how good the economy and job market is. And the stock market doesn't matter to 90 percent of America.
Okay. It doesn't matter if those two areas are doing poorly. It doesn't change the absolute fact that the economy is doing well and unemployment is the lowest it has been since 1969. I can with truth and a straight face tell them how good it is.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 16, 2020 22:18:47 GMT
Then you're lying to yourself. So tell me how Trump is helping the economy and employment? What policies of his are doing such wonders?
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Feb 17, 2020 6:32:34 GMT
Then you're lying to yourself. So tell me how Trump is helping the economy and employment? What policies of his are doing such wonders? None. Presidents can't really affect the economy. That doesn't change the fact that the economy is doing well and I can tell the farmers that.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 17, 2020 13:40:22 GMT
This is why I don't take you seriously. You're full of shit.
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Feb 17, 2020 13:50:12 GMT
Then you're lying to yourself. So tell me how Trump is helping the economy and employment? What policies of his are doing such wonders? None. Presidents can't really affect the economy. That doesn't change the fact that the economy is doing well and I can tell the farmers that. If you ask my small business owning friends, the changes to the tax code made a huge difference. They're often classified as the "rich" that the tax code inappropriately helped because they file as S corps, meaning they claim business income as personal. The changes made their tax filing both easier and meant they paid less, which each and every one of them immediately used to make improvements in their business -- hiring more, expanding operations, critical updates to infrastructure (building improvements, shelving updates, computer updates, etc.), and increasing payroll. Sure, they each also took home more money, but this change improved all of the people I know who own a business and, through them, created more and better paying jobs than before. And, this would not have happened if Clinton had been elected. This leaves aside the huge number of regulations that have bit the dust in the last 3 years. Like, immense number. Trump's administration has been ruthless in cutting, combining, and streamlining/simplifying regulations. That's made a huge difference in a number of industries, as cost of regulation compliance can be crippling. Again, wouldn't have happened if Clinton had been elected. So, sure, nothing the President does directly impacts the economy, but the indirect impacts can be very large. The USMCA is a big deal, and one of the successes that improves the US economy. NAFTA really had the US under some pretty unfair trade practices in favor of Mexico and, to a much lesser degree, Canada. At the time, probably not a bad thing, and it really helped Mexico step up, economically. However, like any system, it was gamed to the detriment of all. USMCA is a good restart, and, best of all, has a fixed renegotiation window so that if it starts to be gamed like NAFTA, has a much less onerous way to resolve issues that NAFTA, which was all or nothing. The nothing was scary to politicians, so we got the all, good and hard.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 17, 2020 15:11:31 GMT
At least you gave me a reason. Not that I agree with all of it, but you did give some valid reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Feb 17, 2020 17:00:54 GMT
None. Presidents can't really affect the economy. That doesn't change the fact that the economy is doing well and I can tell the farmers that. If you ask my small business owning friends, the changes to the tax code made a huge difference. They're often classified as the "rich" that the tax code inappropriately helped because they file as S corps, meaning they claim business income as personal. The changes made their tax filing both easier and meant they paid less, which each and every one of them immediately used to make improvements in their business -- hiring more, expanding operations, critical updates to infrastructure (building improvements, shelving updates, computer updates, etc.), and increasing payroll. Sure, they each also took home more money, but this change improved all of the people I know who own a business and, through them, created more and better paying jobs than before. And, this would not have happened if Clinton had been elected. This leaves aside the huge number of regulations that have bit the dust in the last 3 years. Like, immense number. Trump's administration has been ruthless in cutting, combining, and streamlining/simplifying regulations. That's made a huge difference in a number of industries, as cost of regulation compliance can be crippling. Again, wouldn't have happened if Clinton had been elected. So, sure, nothing the President does directly impacts the economy, but the indirect impacts can be very large. The USMCA is a big deal, and one of the successes that improves the US economy. NAFTA really had the US under some pretty unfair trade practices in favor of Mexico and, to a much lesser degree, Canada. At the time, probably not a bad thing, and it really helped Mexico step up, economically. However, like any system, it was gamed to the detriment of all. USMCA is a good restart, and, best of all, has a fixed renegotiation window so that if it starts to be gamed like NAFTA, has a much less onerous way to resolve issues that NAFTA, which was all or nothing. The nothing was scary to politicians, so we got the all, good and hard. The President cannot change the tax code. He can ask Congress to change it, but at the end of the day, it's Congress, not the President that causes those changes. And yes, the president can affect the economy somewhat through regulation changes, but the economy is very, very large, and even those regulation changes only make a small difference in the overall economy. They can make a huge difference localized to those industries, though.
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Feb 17, 2020 18:33:22 GMT
If you ask my small business owning friends, the changes to the tax code made a huge difference. They're often classified as the "rich" that the tax code inappropriately helped because they file as S corps, meaning they claim business income as personal. The changes made their tax filing both easier and meant they paid less, which each and every one of them immediately used to make improvements in their business -- hiring more, expanding operations, critical updates to infrastructure (building improvements, shelving updates, computer updates, etc.), and increasing payroll. Sure, they each also took home more money, but this change improved all of the people I know who own a business and, through them, created more and better paying jobs than before. And, this would not have happened if Clinton had been elected. This leaves aside the huge number of regulations that have bit the dust in the last 3 years. Like, immense number. Trump's administration has been ruthless in cutting, combining, and streamlining/simplifying regulations. That's made a huge difference in a number of industries, as cost of regulation compliance can be crippling. Again, wouldn't have happened if Clinton had been elected. So, sure, nothing the President does directly impacts the economy, but the indirect impacts can be very large. The USMCA is a big deal, and one of the successes that improves the US economy. NAFTA really had the US under some pretty unfair trade practices in favor of Mexico and, to a much lesser degree, Canada. At the time, probably not a bad thing, and it really helped Mexico step up, economically. However, like any system, it was gamed to the detriment of all. USMCA is a good restart, and, best of all, has a fixed renegotiation window so that if it starts to be gamed like NAFTA, has a much less onerous way to resolve issues that NAFTA, which was all or nothing. The nothing was scary to politicians, so we got the all, good and hard. The President cannot change the tax code. He can ask Congress to change it, but at the end of the day, it's Congress, not the President that causes those changes. And yes, the president can affect the economy somewhat through regulation changes, but the economy is very, very large, and even those regulation changes only make a small difference in the overall economy. They can make a huge difference localized to those industries, though. The tax code cannot change without the President, so you can't just entirely remove the office. The likelihood that the recent tax reform bill wouldn't have even been proposed had Clinton won, ceterus paribas. And, regulation can have huge impacts on the economy. Look at Sarbanes-Oxley.
|
|
|
Post by Scarbonac on Feb 18, 2020 0:21:26 GMT
If you ask my small business owning friends, the changes to the tax code made a huge difference. Liar. You don't have any friends.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Feb 18, 2020 0:28:49 GMT
The President cannot change the tax code. He can ask Congress to change it, but at the end of the day, it's Congress, not the President that causes those changes. And yes, the president can affect the economy somewhat through regulation changes, but the economy is very, very large, and even those regulation changes only make a small difference in the overall economy. They can make a huge difference localized to those industries, though. The tax code cannot change without the President, so you can't just entirely remove the office. The likelihood that the recent tax reform bill wouldn't have even been proposed had Clinton won, ceterus paribas. And, regulation can have huge impacts on the economy. Look at Sarbanes-Oxley. Sure it can. It's just highly unlikely that Congress could override a veto.
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Feb 18, 2020 2:36:43 GMT
The tax code cannot change without the President, so you can't just entirely remove the office. The likelihood that the recent tax reform bill wouldn't have even been proposed had Clinton won, ceterus paribas. And, regulation can have huge impacts on the economy. Look at Sarbanes-Oxley. Sure it can. It's just highly unlikely that Congress could override a veto. I'll take this as a quibble that concedes the point.
|
|