more nothing burgers

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

crumbs...

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ur_family.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s the deficit, not crumbs
And growth hasn’t really sped up either — real per capita gross domestic product growth was only 1.34 percent in the first quarter, below 2017’s pace, and considerably less than in 2014 and 2015:
This tepid rate of growth means that the tax cut is unlikely to pay for itself. By this point, almost all economists recognize that income tax cuts no longer stimulate the economy enough to reduce deficits, as supply-siders thought they would back in the 1980s. But economists still held out some hope that lowering the corporate tax, which is believed to be more harmful than the personal income tax, would have a more salutary effect on the budget. Unfortunately, that hope appears to be fading, as fiscal deficits increase rapidly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

:
This tepid rate of growth means that the tax cut is unlikely to pay for itself. .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's true. But unlike Obama's stimulus package which also didn't come close to paying for itself, the tax cuts are at least putting a few bucks in our pockets, and putting more people back to work.


Apple announced 20,000 new jobs as a result of the tax cuts. Which companies did anything remotely like that, as a result of Obama's stimulus bill? His favorite, Solyndra, which doesn't exist anymore?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's true. But unlike Obama's stimulus package which also didn't come close to paying for itself, the tax cuts are at least putting a few bucks in our pockets, and putting more people back to work.


Apple announced 20,000 new jobs as a result of the tax cuts. Which companies did anything remotely like that, as a result of Obama's stimulus bill? His favorite, Solyndra, which doesn't exist anymore?

You always get lost in But Obama
Obama's worked better than Bush's
Trump didn't start out in a hole
The republican Platform has never been Higher Deficits, Tariffs, Limiting political speech, Anti NATO

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You always get lost in But Obama
Obama's worked better than Bush's
Trump didn't start out in a hole
The republican Platform has never been Higher Deficits, Tariffs, Limiting political speech, Anti NATO

"You always get lost in But Obama"

And instead of telling me that I'm wrong when I point out hypocrisy, all you can do is say that there's no reason to go back to Obama. You can't make me wrong (because I'm clearly not wrong), so you"want to change the subject. Doesn't work that way.

"Obama's worked better than Bush's "

You might be right. See? Its possible to admit the other side is right.

"Trump didn't start out in a hole"

No he didn't. But the lower unemployment is, the more difficult it is, to get it lower. Same with the stock market. But the fact is (whether you hate it or not), unemployment is lower, and the stock market is higher, than when Trump took office.

Obama gets good marks from me on handling the economy. So does Trump. I can say that about both men, because I am not bound by partisanship, but motivated by truth.

"The republican Platform has never been Higher Deficits"

Not until Bush jr.

"Limiting political speech"

Let me get this straight. You are claiming that the GOP wants to silence those on the other side? No irony there, just ask Ben Shapiro or Ann Coulter.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"You always get lost in But Obama"

And instead of telling me that I'm wrong when I point out hypocrisy, all you can do is say that there's no reason to go back to Obama. You can't make me wrong (because I'm clearly not wrong), so you"want to change the subject. Doesn't work that way.
I don't see where I am being hypocritical by being concerned about the budget and the deficit, your typical answer is whatabout which only deflects from the issue being discussed, what evidence have you seen that the tax cuts are producing longterm economic gains? The things i see are not good

"Obama's worked better than Bush's "

You might be right. See? Its possible to admit the other side is right.

"Trump didn't start out in a hole"

No he didn't. But the lower unemployment is, the more difficult it is, to get it lower. Same with the stock market. But the fact is (whether you hate it or not), unemployment is lower, and the stock market is higher, than when Trump took office.

Obama gets good marks from me on handling the economy. So does Trump. I can say that about both men, because I am not bound by partisanship, but motivated by truth.

"The republican Platform has never been Higher Deficits"

Not until Bush jr.

"Limiting political speech"

Let me get this straight. You are claiming that the GOP wants to silence those on the other side? No irony there, just ask Ben Shapiro or Ann Coulter.

The republican Platform has never been Higher Deficits, Tariffs, Limiting political speech, Anti NATO until Baby Donny Bonespur
You have a short memory, this was your comment in another thread
"Stupid move, with awful optics, by a petty man. Even Obama, also a vindictive thin-skinned baby, never went this far.

Not a good month for Trump..."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The republican Platform has never been Higher Deficits, Tariffs, Limiting political speech, Anti NATO until Baby Donny Bonespur
You have a short memory, this was your comment in another thread
"Stupid move, with awful optics, by a petty man. Even Obama, also a vindictive thin-skinned baby, never went this far.

Not a good month for Trump..."

"I don't see where I am being hypocritical "

I didn't mean you specifically, but liberals in general. All of their concerns flip flop depending on who is POTUS, there's no principled convictions there.

"your typical answer is whatabout "

I think I only go there when the hypocrisy is laughable. That's not my "typical" answer, my typical answer is to point to actual empirical evidence.

Not sure what you mean by my short memory. I said it wasn't a good month for Trump, he acted stupidly, and I stand by that. I still like much of what he's doing.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You always get lost in But Obama
Obama's worked better than Bush's
Trump didn't start out in a hole
The republican Platform has never been Higher Deficits, Tariffs, Limiting political speech, Anti NATO

he loves to leave out facts and big picture

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.[16] By 2014 the loan program had wiped out its losses, including a $528 million loss from Solyndra, and was operating in the black.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

he loves to leave out facts and big picture

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.[16] By 2014 the loan program had wiped out its losses, including a $528 million loss from Solyndra, and was operating in the black.

Nope. I said the stimulus didn't pay for itself, which was totally distinct from the recovery/reinvestment act, which I understand not only paid for itself, but may have turned a profit? But I was talking about the Obama stimulus bill (price tag around 750B), which was a flop. Huge promises of shovel ready jobs, and later, even Obama was laughing that they weren't as shovel ready as he thought. Ha ha ha, we wasted three quarters of a trillion.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But I was talking about the Obama stimulus bill (price tag around 750B), which was a flop. Huge promises of shovel ready jobs, and later, even Obama was laughing that they weren't as shovel ready as he thought. Ha ha ha, we wasted three quarters of a trillion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.a91be058f3cb

A good read on the subject. Summary = the stimulus worked.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by spence

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.a91be058f3cb

A good read on the subject. Summary = the stimulus worked.

Good you summarized for him. Jim thinks the black unemployment rate after 1+ year of trump in office has correlation to Trump's level of racism. SAD!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.a91be058f3cb

A good read on the subject. Summary = the stimulus worked.

shocker that you came to that conclusion. i mean, we are stunned.

the EU concessions that you dismissed as nothing? well. i still don’t claim to understand it, but the stick market reacted favorably to it. so the people living where the tires meet the road, thought it was beneficial.

can your psyche accept that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1147356]
And growth hasn’t really sped up either — real per capita gross domestic product growth was only 1.34 percent in the first quarter
/QUOTE]

Well if GDP is your concern, you will almost certainly be seeing some really good news Friday. Watch how it gets spun if GDP growth is north of 3.5%.

Because (1) the economy is soaring, and (2) democrats can't bring themselves to admit that...the democrats are getting more and more creative/extreme in terms of economic "improvements" that they will bring to the table, like "free" tuition, a guaranteed income, and unicorns that poop gold and pee milk shakes.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Well if GDP is your concern, you will almost certainly be seeing some really good news Friday. Watch how it gets spun if GDP growth is north of 3.5%.

The GDP numbers are going to be very high, mostly fueled by companies stockpiling goods and materials to avoid paying higher prices due to the tariffs.

It's not spin, it's all in the numbers.

Of course Trump is going to take another victory lap and you'll once again fail to see beyond your nose.

[Pete F.]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1147405]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And growth hasn’t really sped up either — real per capita gross domestic product growth was only 1.34 percent in the first quarter
/QUOTE]

Well if GDP is your concern, you will almost certainly be seeing some really good news Friday. Watch how it gets spun if GDP growth is north of 3.5%.

Because (1) the economy is soaring, and (2) democrats can't bring themselves to admit that...the democrats are getting more and more creative/extreme in terms of economic "improvements" that they will bring to the table, like "free" tuition, a guaranteed income, and unicorns that poop gold and pee milk shakes.

Soaring?

Remember this is a country, not a real estate deal, you need good longterm policy, not just a great meeting.
Lots of people in my industry who have concerns, do you think this is a liberal publication?
https://www.constructionequipment.co...13&bid=2184490

Meanwhile Bernie and the chick from Queens had thousands attend a rally in flyover land that promoted the things that obviously scare you most.
Healthcare
Social Security
Housing
Education
Elderly
Campaign Finance
Gun Control
Criminal Justice Reform
Climate Change
Women's Rights
Immigration

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1147408]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Soaring?

Remember this is a country, not a real estate deal, you need good longterm policy, not just a great meeting.
Lots of people in my industry who have concerns, do you think this is a liberal publication?
https://www.constructionequipment.co...13&bid=2184490

Meanwhile Bernie and the chick from Queens had thousands attend a rally in flyover land that promoted the things that obviously scare you most.
Healthcare
Social Security
Housing
Education
Elderly
Campaign Finance
Gun Control
Criminal Justice Reform
Climate Change
Women's Rights
Immigration

At that rally, they also gave an ovation to a cop killer.

"Women's Rights". If you want one example to illustrate everything that's wrong with liberalism, it's the use of that term. Why can't you just say "abortion"? That's the only specific right that we really differ on, yet you need to use a sanitizing euphemism.

I am a huge believer in women's rights - right to vote, to dress how they want, to choose whether to work or stay home with the kids, I am in favor of all kinds of rights. But you feel the need to frame this issue in such a way, as to make it seem like those who disagree with you on abortion, are somehow against "women's rights" in some macro kind of view.

It's nonsense. I can tell you what I believe without having to disguise my beliefs, to make it sound like I believe something other than what I actually believe. What does it say about your opinion, that you need to disguise it as something else?

I'm not afraid of any of the things on that list. From what I saw, the liberals were big on promises, short on plans to pay for it. I don't know if the promises of free stuff, especially coming from a new York socialist who is so dumb that she doesn't know what "unemployment" is (she thinks unemployment I slow because people work two jobs), are going to win people over in middle America. But we'll soon see.

That young socialist from new York city is so stupid, she makes that Miss South Carolina beauty contestant from a few years ago, sound like Margaret Thatcher.

[Pete F.]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1147409]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

a new York socialist who is so dumb that she doesn't know what "unemployment" is (she thinks unemployment I slow because people work two jobs), are going to win people over in middle America. But we'll soon see.

That young socialist from new York city is so stupid, she makes that Miss South Carolina beauty contestant from a few years ago, sound like Margaret Thatcher.

Guess you got the Faux spin on that one
You don’t know anybody who works two jobs?
How does that get counted in the employment calculations
https://www.businessinsider.com/more...ds-meet-2017-8
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1147467]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Guess you got the Faux spin on that one
You don’t know anybody who works two jobs?
How does that get counted in the employment calculations
https://www.businessinsider.com/more...ds-meet-2017-8
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

does your brain literally shut off when something happens that makes someone in your side look stupid.

of course i know people working two jobs.

that’s not the point.

the point is, if i have a job, and i take a second job, THAT DOESN’T LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT. whether i have one job or ten jobs, the unemployment rate stays the same. this ditzy socialist from Queens, didn’t know that. she thought low unemployment WAS BAD, because she thought it was achieved by people working multiple jobs.

i’m sorry, but someday you’re going to have to settle with the fact that there are a few morons on the left.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device