One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: straightUp
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 380 next>>
May 26, 2018 14:39:44   #
lindajoy wrote:
Yes, I know what buffalo said.... I do enjoy buffalo’s posts even if we disagree politically, I still like the person...

Straight if you read my posts you will not see where I claim the tax cuts as fabulous or the best they could come up etc because it does have its pit falls.. Remember where I said if left to me I would have preferred a flat tax or even Cains’ 999..

As for the algorithms used, You will also see where I said at this point its all speculation whether its your numbers or the numbers I used and we will just have to wait and see what really happens..

Ad for Krugman he may well be right~ and time tells all...

I wasn’t disagreeing with you on the tax projections as much as I was about claiming Trumps policy was behind Harleys decisions..

I don’t have anything to hide about the resources I looked at ect..To admit a right leaning site is just that isn’t wrong.. I figure having multiple considerations only make the debate more interesting..It isn’t a win /lose draw for me.. Its looking at all scenerio’s and learning what others believe and why..
Yes, I know what buffalo said.... I do enjoy buffa... (show quote)

It was good to see this response from you linda and yes, I did notice your comment about the tax cut being perhaps not the best answer. At some point, I'd like to learn more about your opinions on tax alternatives. It's been a little frustrating that you (and others) had assumed I was blaming Trump for the decisions Harley-Davidson made though because that wasn't what I said at all.

But this is why I post on OPP... to test my communication skills anonymously. When I write under my real name, I'm far more careful about what I say. My self-assessment here is that while I got the point across to the liberals I failed to get it across to conservatives and I'm pretty sure it's because of my stated hostility toward Trump. Had I left that out, I'm sure more of you would have read through the Harley-Davidson lead-up and arrived at the main point of my argument about the tax cuts like the "liberals" did. But that's the challenge of my exercise; This is part of a series I'm working on that ultimately *IS* an attack on Trump. Not just because I hate him, but because I honestly think he is making things worse for the American working class.

There are two ways to look at the tax cut, there is the hard reality in which government revenue will be cut and then there is all the speculation about how it will encourage economic growth. There's good reason to be concerned about the hard reality because cutting revenue to the government, especially when it's already suffering from a budget deficit, forces it to either defund programs or borrow. That translates to hurting Americans now (defunding) or hurting them later (debt). Everyone knows this, including conservative leadership which is why they turn to speculation to assure Americans that harm won't come to them because the corporations will pass their economic advantages to the American people. So what they are essentially doing is saying "Trust the corporations... Everything will be fine."

Hmm... "trust the corporations."

Hence the point of bringing Harley-Davidson into the picture. Did they get an economic advantage from the tax cuts? Spending $700 million on stock buybacks in the first fiscal period following the tax cut says they did. Did they pass that economic advantage to their workers? Closing a plant and laying off 800 workers says they didn't. There maybe other factors involved, I don't want to rest my conclusion on an over-simplified assessment of one company. So I brought in the big picture, the one I've been highlighting in red like this... corporate stock buybacks hit a record $178 billion in the first three months of 2018; average hourly earnings for American workers are up 67 cents over the past year..

The pattern seems pretty obvious to me and it tells me that trusting the corporations might be a little naive at best. Now before we launch into a conservative "pro-business" vs liberal "anti-business" spat, let me just say that I find no fault in what Harley-Davidson did. In the simplest terms I can find... corporations are not responsible for the well-being of the American family; that responsibility falls squarely on the government. So in my opinion, the transgression is the tax-cut itself that shifts the means of insuring the welfare of the American family from the government responsible for it, to the corporations that aren't.
 
May 26, 2018 03:42:26   #
son of witless wrote:
Wow you're a live one. Are you still trying to win ?

LOL... there's no winning in this game, you know that. I've made my point... some people got it, some people didn't.

son of witless wrote:

Actually I will be kind to you because in your own way you at least do me the courtesy of addressing my individual points. That makes you a freaking genius compared to all of the other Liberals on OPP.

I wouldn't say that... I think there are some pretty smart liberals on this site. But I appreciate your gesture.

son of witless wrote:

But to address some of your points. " At least I can SPELL judgment. " Believe it or not when I was in elementary school I was a spelling bee Champion. Me and two girls were always 1,2, and 3. However, since then my spelling has deteriorated to the point where I intentionally misspell just to get attention.

so... you're spelling has deteriorated... but it's intentional?

son of witless wrote:

However, since you wish to go into unimportant things like my spelling, let me point out that you are not quite as smart as you think you are. Judgement or Judgment are both technically correct. Some spell checkers allow both. Some not. You are correct that Judgment is the more common spelling, it just is not the only acceptable spelling.

It's really not my wish to go into unimportant things like spelling... When I said "at least I can SPELL judgment" it was more of a passing remark in response to your "behind-my-back" insult when you told jack... "He knows just enough to be dangerous, which is far less than what he needs to know to make sound judgements on economics and politics." See the context now? As for your information on the spelling of judgment vs judgement, I will concede, I didn't know "judgement" was acceptable. I learn something every day and you finally scored a point on an "unimportant" issue ;)

son of witless wrote:

" If they were best buddies why were the Russians so interested in making sure Trump won? " They didn't. If you knew what you think you know you would know it isn't true. The Russians did not care who won. What they did was support the weaker candidate. That is what they always do. They did not want one candidate to win big. They want a divided America. They made the same mistake Y'all made. They believed the lying polls that said Hilly in a landslide. So they wanted Trump to cut into her victory margin, but they did not care who won.
br " If they were best buddies why were the ... (show quote)

That's an awful lot of conjecture there witless. I mean if any of that is true Mueller really needs to call you in for an interview because no one else seems to have that much insight into Russian motives. LOL

Aside from pointing out that Trump was the weaker candidate none of the rest of what you said makes any logical sense. You're essentially saying that Russia wanted to even things out to keep America divided. First of all, America has always been divided politically and it never mattered if an election was a landslide or a nail-biter. Secondly, none of that has any impact on Russian interests anyway. It makes more sense to assume that our foreign policy is more of a concern to Moscow than the nature of domestic squabbling in America and to that end the choices were between a President with previous experience as a Secretary of State with direct experience in Syria and an egotistical TV celebrity with no military experience, no diplomatic experience and an already proven weakness for temptation.

son of witless wrote:

" Oh, so now we're admitting Russian interference, as long as Trump isn't implicated right? " Obama interfered in the Israeli election because he hates Bibi. Why is that different than what Putin did ?

It's different because Obama's State Department gave $233,500 to OneVoice a non-profit organization based in New York that represents Jewish AND Palestinian interests in a two-state solution. There was nothing secret about it, the funding was reported appropriately and explained as an effort to help OneVoice raise awareness of the two-state solution that NuttyYahoo is trying to silence. There was no computer hacking, there was no secret meetings with campaign managers... The similarities are pretty much non-existent.

son of witless wrote:

The point is, it doesn't matter what the Russians or Trump did. No legally it does not matter except if they acted in concert. That is Collusion and you and yours got squat on that.

Actually, it does matter. We have actual laws that say it matters. But you're right about there being no evidence (yet) of direct collusion, but keep in mind, YOU were the one that brought up the Russians not me.

son of witless wrote:

Logically, if you were capable of thinking logically, you would know that if Putin had coordinated with Trump he would have the evidence and he would make it public. Putin only cares about weakening America. What better way than to give evidence that would get Trump impeached. The crisis would weaken America and that helps Vlad. Since Vlad has not done it, he has no evidence.

You making a huge assumption here that impeaching Trump would weaken America. A more prevalent perspective is that keeping Trump in office is the best way to weaken America, in which case Putin's job is done and there's no need to reveal any evidence of anything.

son of witless wrote:

"The Democrats were never in need of a patsy witless, the moment Trump won the electoral vote, they already had one... Hillary even came up with a name for them... "deplorables". Why blame the Russians when the deplorables were the ones that voted for the idiot? "

Us Deplorables are a known quantity.

Yes, about 24% and it's been pretty consistent. No one else is joining you.

son of witless wrote:

We hated Hillary and Obama.

Gee, I couldn't tell.

son of witless wrote:

We were outvoted in 2008 and 2012. Our demise was joyfully predicted by the media. We were disappearing.

Don't get ahead of yourself... No one thought the deplorables were disappearing just because they were being outvoted by a larger majority of Americans.

son of witless wrote:

Hillary did not even try to appeal to us because we were yesterday's news.

That's not the reason... Seriously, what sense would it make for her to spend precious time and money on appealing to a crowd that makes it very clear how much they hate her? When crowds a chanting "Lock Her Up" that's sufficient reason to spend efforts elsewhere.

son of witless wrote:

Low and behold Trump wins. No way can Democrats admit that we were strong enough to win.

You weren't strong enough to win... You lost the popular vote by 3 million. In case you didn't know, the popular vote is the one you actually participate in. Trump won because of the way the Electoral College voted, which has nothing to do with your vote. The only politicians that are actually elected by the people are the representatives in Congress. The president is not elected by the people, the president is elected by Congress, using special electors, one for each congressional district. The general expectation is that the electors will vote for the candidates chosen by the popular votes in their respective district, but depending on the state that may not be a rule. Electors in some states can vote for whoever they want and sometimes they vote for the candidate that the people in the district did NOT vote for, these are called "faithless electors" and there were a number of them in 2016, mostly from districts that voted for Clinton who went ahead and voted for third party candidates anyway.

So, as far as I'm concerned, if the Russians had any pro-Trump influence on the 2016 elections it was only to to minimize what may have been a far greater loss than 3 million on the popular vote. As for the official election, you should be thanking the Electoral College.

son of witless wrote:

" Be careful witless... for you know, this site could be run by Russians. " That cannot be true. If it was Vlad would fire most of the liberals because they are pathetic in their arguments against my boy Trump.

I said Russians, not Vlad.

son of witless wrote:

" I would LOVE to hear you try to describe their economy. I bet you think they're still 100% communist. "

They ARE Communist in all except name. Russia is mostly a natural resources economy. Oil, Gas, and minerals. When Putin took over he quickly reinstated Central Control over most of the economy. Putin is a Communist. He does not know any other way. Just as Central Economic Control strangled the old Soviet Union's economy, so Putin's State Capitalism will continue to strangle Russia's. He cannot allow Private Capitalism to fix his economy because it would threaten his power.
br " I would LOVE to hear you try to describ... (show quote)

It's not just that you're wrong, it's that your blatantly wrong about something that is so easily verifiable. Russia is almost entirely capitalist now, the ONLY sectors still under central control is energy and defense. Industry and agriculture has been privatized since the 90's. Maybe you should look a few things up every now and then instead of making up stories about the private motivations of world leaders.

son of witless wrote:

" I think the fantasy you just spun more than disqualifies you from making any assessments about anyone else's command of history witless " Perhaps. I don't spin fantasies, but if I chose to, you are not smart enough to catch it.


LOL - I catch 'em every time.

son of witless wrote:

" so if you have a point I'm sure I don't know what it is. " That you do not know history at all. World politics has always been conducted by each country looking out for it's own interests.

We don't live in history witless. We MAKE history. It's important to understand this because sometimes patterns change and you're not going to see that if you're constantly expecting history to repeat itself verbatim. These changes are why history get's divided into eras. If you go back far enough, humans were nomadic and there WERE no countries, but politics, being a function of human behavior, existed anyway with power being a matter or merit. Countries didn't happen until humans shifted to an agrarian existence where power was granted through land titles. From the Renaissance onward power has been shifting from land to capital.

Today, capital accounts for almost all the power in the world. Unlike land titles, capital is fluid. This makes your assessment that countries are the functional units of politics antiquated at best. The problem we are increasingly running into is that while capital is flowing all over the world at light speeds, humans are for the most part trapped in their locations because of human things like family, friends, jobs, schools etc... It this contrast that underlies the problems we see today such as off-shoring... which is where capital is free to find cheaper labor elsewhere in the world leaving the American worker searching for jobs in the location he is fixed in. Countries are loosing their significance as political units. We see this more and more now on the battlefields as we find conflict with an increasing array of stateless organizations. The list of transnational corporations is also increasing then there is of course the NWO that some of you folks are constantly ranting about.

Even now I'm watching you folks cheering the slow the death of our own Republic as you push for smaller government and more privatization. You folks get so caught up in ideologies and your assumptions that private business is more efficient than government that you don't realize that between the two, it's the private company that can be owned by foreign nationals and that our constitution only applies to our government. These are facts that may never be realized by someone who assumes all politics are conducted by each country looking out for it's own interests.

son of witless wrote:

The United States is in a competition with China, Russia, and Iran in that order.

Competition for what?

son of witless wrote:

The Chinese because of their growing economy are the strongest long term threat. They are very smart and very ruthless. Obama had no clue in dealing with them or Putin. Trump does.

You can say what you want about Obama vs Trump, but the evidence so far indicates that Obama got results, so far all Trump has given us is entertainment.

son of witless wrote:

"China wasn't actually screwing us. They were just one of the few trading partners with the power to NOT be screwed by America. "

That statement proves my point that you are clueless.

THAT statement proves my point yet again, that you are delusional.
May 25, 2018 23:29:43   #
jack sequim wa wrote:
I think the islands China built as military bases gives credibility to their "Diabolical" plans, considering the location.

You mean the ocean right off their own coast? Have you looked at the military bases WE have in their vicinity?



And you're calling THEM diabolical? Do you see any Chinese bases in Canada or Mexico? On your trip, did you see any Chinese fleets off the beautiful Oregon coast? It just seems a little hypocritical to be calling China's placement of a military base less than a few hundred miles from their own coast "diabolical" when we literally have them surrounded with military bases. If you remember, we fought two wars to influence their immediate neighbors, Korea and Vietnam. I think it's far more likely that their base in the South China sea is a defensive position.

jack sequim wa wrote:

China has long wanted Taiwan and islands off of Japan which is not in dispute.

Well, culturally speaking, Taiwan *IS* Chinese. They even call themselves the Republic of China and it's very, very close to mainland China AND (surprise, surprise) the U.S. has an airbase there. Think about our own struggles with Cuba being a Soviet satellite... Taiwan is no further away from China than Cuba is to Florida. So again it seems hypocritical to slam China for being possessive toward Taiwan, when we're just as possessive toward Cuba.

jack sequim wa wrote:

My point in America only being able to engage in one major military engagement is the opportunity for China to further extend their military presence. In the past we have parked a few aircraft carriers, destroyers and support ships in protest of China. A direct conflict say with Iran may open a door for China to further expand. Educated speculation based on China's behavior in the past. I doubt China would want a direct conflict with us, but neither do we.

I'm not sure what your "educated speculation" is based on but I would agree that neither country wants a direct conflict. Besides, China has been far more interested in conquering world markets through free trade than through warfare and this is where I think it's such a shame that we insist on these militant assessments. We have every opportunity to work with them peacefully but we keep resorting to the old ways of imperial ambition and fear-mongering.

jack sequim wa wrote:

Last I looked China only makes up +/- 10% of our world trade. However China has already taken action to damage America's economy

Well, things have changed since 1974 jack, you should update. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative under the Trump Administration, China is our #1 trade partner and that's just based on tangibles. Our #1 export, sadly, is debt. And guess who's buying almost all of our debt? That's right, China is. This is why economists have said that if China decided to stop buying our T-bills our economy would immediately crash, suggesting it would be just as devastating as a nuclear weapon, if not more. If that's not bad enough, the Congressional Budget Office has stated that the only two laws Trump has so far signed, the tax cut and the spending bill, together will drive our deficit to $1 trillion by 2019, which as I'm sure you know will drive out national debt even higher, which makes us even more vulnerable to a Chinese decision to pull the plug.

(Never ceases to amaze me how the same people that were screaming about spending and debt two years ago, have nothing to say about it now.)

jack sequim wa wrote:

The reason steel is up, simply because lack of competing with other American steel companies.

Steel went up by 71% SINCE Trump took office. So are you saying that before Trump there were more American steel companies in competition? If so, what happened to them?

jack sequim wa wrote:

Yes, a steel smelter is being brought back to life, but investors are preparing to get in on steel market with several plants projected to open and leases on land to mine, but subject to Trump locking in long term commitments to tariffs.

OK... well, when that happens let me know. Until then, I'm dealing with facts not speculation.

jack sequim wa wrote:

I disagree with companies being harmed by tariffs. Short term yes, but not long term.

What are you basing that on? Or is this just a gut feeling?

jack sequim wa wrote:

Your comment that 6.5 million jobs are threatened is silly hyperbole.

Don't blame me, I was quoting The American Institute for International Steel. They're the ones that said 6.5 million workers are employed by industries that consume steel. So do they disagree with jack's gut feeling too?

jack sequim wa wrote:

America's future will be far stronger not depending on other countries and being at their mercy. I just don't understand why you don't see this.

One word... "Globalization". You should read about it so you can ditch your 1950's mindset and see the world they way it really is today.

jack sequim wa wrote:

History should show you how our economic dynamics have changed over the last 60+ years becoming dependent on outside resources, closing down domestic resources.

All the more reason to consider the possibility that things are still changing. The difference between us is that I'm looking toward the future where we have adapt and reinvent ourselves to stay relevant. You on the other hand seem to want to revert to the way we used to do things. If history tells you anything at all, it should tell you that nations never revert to their former selves because global conditions are always changing the rules. America can NEVER go back to 1950.
May 25, 2018 21:55:40   #
lindajoy wrote:
Good Morning,buffalo...
Always enjoy your informative posts..

I have no doubt the rich are going to reap more in the long run.. To say they will not is a lie..
But I also like the measures taken for the middle class and do believe it will be better than the lying media slant on everything Trump does or doesn't do...

The rich who run this country anyway will spend/invest more into our country as well..They are really the ones that “ keep us a float”..,

I would have preferred a flat tax or even something along the lines of Cain’s 999 presentstion..

The tax cut’s stated goal is to boost the economy, leading to higher incomes and better job opportunities for millions of American workers.... A better business climate is the reason cited by two moderate GOP senators who had initially wavered in support for the tax cut, Bob Corker of Tennessee( who seems to already being much better in tsxes as I recently read) and Susan Collins of Maine??? (Not sure) when they announced their ultimate decisions to support the bill..Also The Tax Foundation, a right-leaning think tank,( putting that out to you) said it believes the bill will create 339,000 more jobs and boost GDP growth to by 0.29 percentage points a year, to 2.13% from 1.84% over the next decade.

Right now what we have is sheer speculation .. We’ll just have to see what takes place... My accountant seems to believe given where I fall in income it may do well for me and I’m not rich by any means.. I’m in that middle income bracket.
Good Morning,buffalo... br Always enjoy your infor... (show quote)

Linda, did you understand what Buffalo was saying? He's basically saying the same thing I am saying with regard to the tax cuts. Buffalo mentioned that research is suggesting only a small portion of these corporate tax cuts will be shifted to workers. You said "thanks for the informative post" then went on to say "The tax cut’s stated goal is to boost the economy, leading to higher incomes and better job opportunities for millions of American workers...."

You also mentioned that the Tax Foundation believes the bill will create 339,000 more jobs and boost GDP growth to by 0.29 percentage points a year, to 2.13% from 1.84% over the next decade. I'm not sure why anyone would believe that. There's no basis for it. 339,000 more jobs... (not 340,000 but 339,000)... Obviously, they are using an algorithm for the estimate and as someone who spent 15 years designing business intelligence systems that use algorithms to make predictions I can tell you how far removed that science is from being perfect. I can also tell you how easy it is for interested parties to make slight adjustments and generate any kind of prediction they want. The Tax Foundation is an interested party. You yourself described them as "right-leaning" and really, all you have to do is visit their site and read their blog to see their "independent and unbiased" veneer wearing off like a cheap paint job.

Paul Krugman in his NYT Blog described the Tax Foundations approach... "So while they’re peddling an analysis that implicitly predicts huge trade deficits and a large jump in income payments to foreigners, they’re using a model that has no way to assess these effects or take them into account. Maybe they’ll eventually do this stuff. But what they appear to be doing now is fundamentally incapable of addressing key issues in the tax policy debate."

And then there's the stats I mentioned in my original post, citing record breaking buybacks in contrast to a minimal rise in wages. These stats tell us that so far, things are not going the way the Tax Foundation had predicted.
May 25, 2018 15:11:44   #
emarine wrote:
Americans enjoyed their largest two-year raise in decades. Median household income rose to just over $59,000 in 2016, up 3.2% from a year earlier, according to data released by the U.S. Census Bureau Tuesday. That comes on top of a 5.2% increase in 2015.Sep 12, 201

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/12/news/economy/median-income-census/index.html


Trumps Tax cut sounds exactly like Paul Ryan's / Charles Koch's plan from 10 tears ago...

Which may have made more sense ten years ago when we were in the worst economic recession since 1929. But the economy has been improving since 2010. The very next paragraph in the article you link to following what you quoted is... "This has been two consecutive years of very strong income growth," said Trudy Renwick, assistant division chief at Census." As you know, Trump wasn't in office two years ago. So why would a president who takes over when the economy is doing so well insist on a tax cut to "help the economy"? the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind.

Unless... this is another example of preparing the U.S. for another dunking. If we think about the last dunking, ten years ago we might remember that none of the bankers that caused the problem actually served any time for what they did and if we look closer at those involved we can see that they actually made a LOT of money off the economic crash. They, cut their liabilities and got bailed out by the taxpayers. It actually worked out really well for them. So why wouldn't they do it again?

The Trump administration has so far done everything they would need to do to repeat the fun, including the repeal of almost all the regulations designed to prevent it from happening again. If THAT isn't at least a little bit obvious... Also, the fact that in the first quarter since the tax cuts there have been $178 billion in stock buybacks strongly suggests a cannibalization of our industries as Wall Street grabs everything it can before kicking the companies into the gutter.
May 25, 2018 14:20:15   #
jack sequim wa wrote:
Good morning Linda, I've been saying since 2000-01 look out for China they want to climb over America at any cost in order to have complete power and control far beyond their region.

I've been saying since 1990 that China is on it's way to being a global economic power. That much we can easily confirm by looking at simple facts like their GDP. What you're saying about their diabolical plans to control the world is simply not provable AND it provokes that irrational fear that conservatives are so famous for. What's with that?

jack sequim wa wrote:

Their military is something to be feared, they know America is only capable of fighting a war on one front and will take advantage of that.

There are indications that they doubt our ability to even fight on one front effectively, given our recent track record. We're known in Asia as a "paper tiger". Fortunately, there are no indications that China is even slightly interested in direct military conflict with the U.S. Their chest beating in the South China Sea is the same thing as our chest beating off the coast of North Korea... It's all... chest beating.

jack sequim wa wrote:

Trump knows that like oil we need to be steel independent.

Why?

jack sequim wa wrote:

If China shut down all steel to America it would collapse our auto makers, commercial contractors and begin a crisis in our country.

It would also cut their sales, which I think is more important to them.

jack sequim wa wrote:

I was glad to hear new steel plants opening as a result of the tariffs and tax cuts.

Aw... sunshine and butterflies... Never mind the fact that these "new steel plants" are in reality just one retired blasting plant being reopened in Illinois. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I think it's great that the plant will open up 500 new jobs, but is it worth all the jobs now at risk because of the tariff?

The American Institute for International Steel, a pro-trade advocacy group, says about 142,000 Americans work in the steel industry. Those workers would stand to benefit from the tariffs. But the institute says about 6.5 million Americans are employed by steel-consuming companies. Some of those jobs would be at risk. How many is hard to say.

The point of the tariffs is to add enough cost to imports that consumers will switch to domestic sources. When you consider the fact reported by S&P that the price of US-made steel is up 71% since Trump's election victory in 2016 you get the a sense of how drastic the impact will be on steel-consuming companies and their 6.5 million workers.

So, your basically cheering Trump for threatening the jobs of 6.5 million workers for the sake of 500.
 
May 25, 2018 13:21:45   #
lindajoy wrote:
I don’t feel bad at all ... You look to spin the facts to justify your disdain of President Trump... I get that .....

I don't "get" that at all linda... Why would I need to spin facts to justify my disdain when my disdain is based on fact as they are?


lindajoy wrote:

The tax cuts are in place now for this year not what happened last year.. Harley has been having negative sales for a few years now..

So? Do you see me blaming the slump in sales on the tax cuts? Or is this you spinning the facts about what I am saying to justify your disdain for me?

lindajoy wrote:

As you pointed out the “nation wide economy” is better now than the last 10 years...
Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in the first quarter of 2018 (table 1), according to the "advance" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. ... Current-dollar GDP increased 4.3 percent, or $211.2 billion, in the first quarter to a level of $19.97 trillion.

https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Next report coming out May 30th suggested it will be over 3% again.. How nice that will be...
br As you pointed out the “nation wide economy” i... (show quote)

So? Do you see me arguing about the state of the economy? Or is this you spinning the facts about what I am saying to justify your disdain for me?

lindajoy wrote:

Another for your consideration...

https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/

Very informative... your link says...
403 - Forbidden: Access is denied.
You do not have permission to view this directory or page using the credentials that you supplied.

lindajoy wrote:

Did you by chance get your article from FB????If so don’t feel bad~~ a lot of people gleaned it a negative for Trump ..You weren’t alone..

I don't get my news from FB.

lindajoy wrote:

And finally from Snopes, which I put no stock in

Is there ANY source that provides ANY hint that Trump may not be the hero you think he is that you don't discredit?

lindajoy wrote:

This Facebook post is largely based on a 9 March 2018 MSNBC segment that featured reporter Garrett Haake speaking with employees at a Harley Davidson plant in Kansas City, Missouri. Some viewers, including the above Facebook poster, may have been confused by the segment, as it did not clearly state that Harley-Davidson first announced that this plant would be closing in January 2018 — more than a month before Trump made his tariff decision.

Well, I can't read the facebook post because of that 403 error, so I'll have to imagine what you're talking about. It sounds like your saying there were plans to close the plant before Trump made his tariff decision. Well, this topic is about the tax cuts, not tariff decisions and it's about what the company did with the savings from the tax cuts, not about what caused the plants to close.

lindajoy wrote:

It is true that some American companies have expressed concern about how new tariffs may affect their business going forward.

Wait... is this about the tangent I got into with witless regarding the "trade wars"? (Maybe if you quote what you're responding to...) Anyway, thanks for acknowledging that some American companies do have a concern about how the tariffs can hurt them. The point I was making with that, is that a lot of American business depends on global supply chains, so nationalist/protectionist measures will inherently run the risk of hurting American business as much as protecting it.

lindajoy wrote:

It is also true that Harley-Davidson will soon be closing a plant in Kansas City, Missouri.

However, these items are not directly related. In fact, Harley has planned on consolidating production at the Kansas City plant since 2015, before Trump was even in office; when the company made the announcement, it said that it was due to slowing motorcycle sales:

Yeah, I know all this. Again, I'm not blaming Trump or the tax cuts for the lost jobs... You won't find ANYWHERE in this thread where I made any such claim. In fact, I never claimed ANY reason for the plant closing in Missouri. I got plenty of theories about that in responses to my post because that's what Trump supporters rushed to focus on, but that was never part the issue I am posting about.

So once more (and if you're going to respond please at least have the decency to pay attention to what I'm saying)...

corporate stock buybacks hit a record $178 billion in the first three months of 2018; average hourly earnings for American workers are up 67 cents over the past year.

So two facts in juxtaposition... By themselves there is nothing to complain about... 67 cents is better than nothing, right? And there's really nothing wrong with massive stock buybacks either. But in juxtaposition we can see the disproportion. With record breaking buybacks reaching $178 billion, all of a sudden 67 cents seems kind of like a $1 tip on a $400 table. The point being made is that these tax cuts are forcing our Republic to offer less assistance to working families and the promise of trickle-down that's supposed to compensate for that is looking like bullshit, which would mean the American working family is being scammed.

Again Harley-Davidson was a mere example because despite their preexisting struggles, they were still able to spend $700 million on stock buybacks in the very first quarter AFTER the tax cuts, so it's pretty obvious where that money came from and where it's going.

I don't draw these points because I have disdain for Trump linda... I have disdain for Trump BECAUSE of these points.
May 25, 2018 11:47:57   #
son of witless wrote:
We are both getting far too long in our answers. Lets us see if we can give abridged versions of our brilliant discussion.

that would be good.

son of witless wrote:

My mistake. By the phrases you used and the tone of your rhetoric my impression of you was that YES you are " one of those 20-something hippies with a bag of weed and a subscription to left-wing rhetoric ". I am used to conversing with Socialists and Marxists. You talk the talk, so I assumed you also walked the walk. Or rather you quack like a Marxist-Socialist.

No problem... I was getting the feeling this was the case, and I understand... I often make the same mistake. It's easy to typecast when reading familiar arguments.

son of witless wrote:

" I'm not sure riding motorcycles will make the problem any clearer for you, but it's easy enough to verify that slumping sales is evident. But again, this has no bearing on my argument. "

How can it not ? You bash Trump and Harley because of the closing of a plant and the fact that Trump's tax cuts did not save it and it's jobs. I pointed out that Harley is in a sales slump. I admit I do not know why they can't sell Harleys, but I sure as shooting know that if they don't they have to close plants.
br " I'm not sure riding motorcycles will ma... (show quote)

Before we loose context; by "it" we are referring to what you were calling the "basic problem" that Harley-Davidson is having. The reason why it has no bearing on my argument is that my argument has nothing to do with the performance of the company. My argument sits on the fact that a company was able to spend $700 million on stock buybacks, despite their performance. Look, I would have to be an idiot to actually blame the layoffs on Trump - I KNOW this, so it's a little frustrating when that's all you people think I am saying, especially when that isn't what I said!

son of witless wrote:

Why is that fact so hard to fathom for a guy who is a " successful 50-something businessman who has co-founded three tech companies over his career " ? WELL ?????

It's not hard for me to fathom that slumping sales leads to closing plants. The reason why I haven't said as much isn't because I'm ignoring obvious business patterns but that I think it goes without saying. Again, your entire argument with me has been over things that you think I'm saying but I haven't. You have yet to even notice what I'm saying, which is this...

While Trump and the Republicans were suggesting that corporate savings from the tax cuts would trickle down to the workers, statistics are showing that a disproportionate cut of those savings are going to investors on Wall Street instead.

I've been highlighting those statistics in red since my first response on this topic to try and get people to read it (apparently, that doesn't work). A tiny bit of math is all it takes to notice that $178 billion in stock buybacks in the first three months of 2018 can't possibly be about JUST Harley-Davidson. Obviously, I am looking at a bigger picture and Harley-Davidson is only an example.
May 25, 2018 03:04:32   #
buffalo wrote:
Can one rationalize the tax cut and jobs act as being a win for the middle class and working poor based on a few, very few, corporations announcing small bonuses and raises, especially since some of the raises were already scheduled BEFORE the act was passed due to raises in minimum wage laws in some states? And, most of the bonuses announced were merely public relations stunts. The $1,000 bonuses announced by WalMart was a farce. $1,000 went only to the few employees with 20 or more years. The average bonus WalMart doled out was $190.00. $400 MILLION in bonuses for 2.1 MILLION employees as compared to 2017 pre-tax PROFITS of $20.5 BILLION. At the same time it annouced the closing of 63 Sam's Club stores.

After Walmart’s announcement, the bonuses now amount to 0.13 percent of the value of the tax cuts to corporate America over 10 years.

Billions of the tax cut savings is going to stock buy backs and increase dividends for most Fortune 500 corporations. Fully 99% of the tax cut is not being passed onto workers in the form of bonuses or raises. Corporate America is generating good press for themselves and President Trump for what is effectively a rounding error.

Trickle down is a scam!
Can one rationalize the tax cut and jobs act as be... (show quote)


At least *some* of us are getting this... LOL

Of course with the focus on the private (corporate) handling of funds, calling this a Trump attack on the working class might seem like a stretch until we consider the impact these "gifts" to Wall Street have on the federal safety nets that most working families depend on.





calling this an attack on the working class takes a little
May 25, 2018 02:58:20   #
lindajoy wrote:
Or the fact one of their own said it wasn’t Trump, its the company~~~

You give the bases for it right here..

"basis"

Also, your focus on "the company" betrays your failure to understand the point being made in the original post which applies to the nation-wide economy, not just one company. Don't feel too bad, your friends didn't do any better.
May 24, 2018 23:10:41   #
son of witless wrote:
Straight up is an excellent example of what Alexander Pope meant when he said. " A little learning is a dangerous thing " . He knows just enough to be dangerous, which is far less than what he needs to know to make sound judgements on economics and politics.

At least I can SPELL judgment.

son of witless wrote:

Up until Trump won, the Liberals and the Russians were bestest buddies.

If they were best buddies why were the Russians so interested in making sure Trump won?

son of witless wrote:

When the Hilly Beast was slain by Donald J. Trump $ Billionaire, the Liberals needed a villain, a scapegoat to appease their suicidal zombie street thugs.

hang on... 'gotta get some popcorn for this one.

son of witless wrote:

The Russians won that honor by being in the right place at the right time. It is true the Russians tried to interfere in the election. The fact is, they always do.

Oh, so now we're admitting Russian interference, as long as Trump isn't implicated right?

son of witless wrote:

It was their bad luck this time that the Democrats desperately needed a Patsy.

The Democrats were never in need of a patsy witless, the moment Trump won the electoral vote, they already had one... Hillary even came up with a name for them... "deplorables". Why blame the Russians when the deplorables were the ones that voted for the idiot?

son of witless wrote:

Not that the Russians do not deserve to be vilified.

Be careful witless... for you know, this site could be run by Russians.

son of witless wrote:

However, the Russians are no longer our number one rival in the World. Russia's military is being rebuilt and has some very good people, but Russia will always be hamstrung by their backward economy. With Putin in charge that is not changing for the foreseeable future. He will never allow the freedoms necessary to reform his economy.

I would LOVE to hear you try to describe their economy. I bet you think they're still 100% communist.

son of witless wrote:

China has the economy and the manpower to challenge us. We have allowed them to virtually destroy vital industries that we will need if we ever have to fight them. Trump is trying to bring back those industries while still engaging China in trade and diplomacy.

Yeah, he's a busy bee running around putting out fake fires everywhere. Always the showman.

son of witless wrote:

Straight up's problem is he has no knowledge of history.

I think the fantasy you just spun more than disqualifies you from making any assessments about anyone else's command of history witless. LOL

son of witless wrote:

As far as he is concerned the universe came into being on the day he was born. If you want to understand today's World you have to look back at the 19th Century. Back then England was the Superpower that America is. France and Russia early on were in the position that Russia and China occupy today. Gradually France and Russia moved away from being England's enemies and became allies because a new power rose when Germany became a united country. Going into WW1 you had England, France and Russia allied against Germany and Austria Hungary. Today's World is the same as back then. Only the technology and the countries have changed.
br As far as he is concerned the universe came in... (show quote)

A little over simplified but at least you got the general idea... very good (clap, clap, clap) Of course none of this conflicts with anything I've said so if you have a point I'm sure I don't know what it is. Are you just trying to let people know you're not as ignorant as you seem when I constantly thrash your arguments?
 
May 24, 2018 22:39:18   #
jack sequim wa wrote:
You failed when you stated if one company laid off workers than the Trump tax cuts failed.
What dies that say about your critical thinking skills.

'Thing is jack... I never said that. I suggest you go back to my original post and read it again.

jack sequim wa wrote:

Should a ceo operate off an ideology, policies and agendas, with ten companies growing, expanding, adding jobs, but one files bankruptcy. Under your narrow thinking you would focus on the company that filed bankruptcy, fire the ceo claiming his ideology, policies and agendas are a complete failure.

This is you telling me how I think based on your own misunderstanding of what I said.

jack sequim wa wrote:

To further your narrow thinking you accused basically "getting off topic" and defending Trump even when wrong, but it is your narrow thinking and disregard of the successes. Just as disregarding the multiple benifits to Americas security and economy of steel tariffs. To condense your cut and paste, a representative of your beliefs, it misses the mark with narrow optics of discrediting president Trumps accomplishments.

So what this comes down to is that you don't like my attitude toward Trump. Why don't you just be honest and say so instead of trying to make this elaborate case about my supposedly "narrow views" which you base on lies about what I said?
May 24, 2018 15:27:46   #
son of witless wrote:
" It's not much of a point if you can't explain it. "
I gave you an explanation.

No you didn't. Your point was that I don't "seem to have a clue how free enterprise works." You didn't explain why it seems that way.

son of witless wrote:

I cannot give you an understanding of what I said.

LOL, ain't THAT the truth!

son of witless wrote:

" I never said taking care of their investors is a bad thing. Once again, you're arguing with your own misconceptions about what I'm actually saying. Besides, Harley-Davidson didn't have to buy $700 million in shares just to "take care of their investors". "

Their investors are the owners. They are in business to reward their shareholders. When they fail to do that they are out of business. If they chose to buy $ 700M in shares, that is their business.

Are you going to spend this whole conversation stating the obvious but irrelevant? I'm very impressed that you have a 101 understanding of basic capitalism, but none if this has any bearing on my argument. I already said taking care of the investors is not bad thing, you even quoted me on that. So what exactly are you arguing here?

I tell you what, I got a lot to do today, so I'm not going to read the rest of your rather long post... No offense but the first points you make seem rather pointless given my argument. How about you take another approach and stop assuming that I'm one of those 20-something hippies with a bag of weed and a subscription to left-wing rhetoric and realize that I'm a successful 50-something businessman who has co-founded three tech companies over his career, has NEVER registered Democrat in his life and simply doesn't agree with the prevailing rhetoric on the right? Maybe then we can have a better conversation about what I'm actually saying.

son of witless wrote:

" If you don't know what their basic problem IS, how do you know what it ISN'T? "

I see I failed to make myself clear, my mistake. I do not know why they have suffered a decline in sales. I do not ride motorcycles. That however is their basic problem.

I'm not sure riding motorcycles will make the problem any clearer for you, but it's easy enough to verify that slumping sales is evident. But again, this has no bearing on my argument. If you read my original post you might realize that Harley-Davidson is only an example of the problem I am presenting, which isn't about blaming anyone for slumping performance. I'm not saying Trump's tax cuts caused the problem Harley-Davidson is having. I'm saying Trump's tax cuts aren't really fixing the problem either which is exactly what Trump and Ryan were suggesting would happen.

Do YOU think spending $700 million on stock buybacks is going to help with this basic problem? Wouldn't some of that money be better spent on market research or factory redesign for more cost effective production? Or is Harley-Davidson hoping the investors themselves will all start buying hogs with all the money they're getting? I know one thing for sure, the slump in sales has resulted in a decline in their stock value and the buybacks are one way that investors can cut their losses through an increase in value per share and there's no reason why they can't divest after that like grabbing as much cash as you can before jumping off a sinking ship. You're correct in saying companies have an obligation to their investors but what seem to get so little attention among conservatives is that investors have no obligation to the company.

son of witless wrote:

" You really aren't putting the pieces together, are you? You keep trying to portray Harley-Davidson as a company struggling with sales (I guess thinking it will somehow excuse the layoffs) while completely missing the fact that they just spent $700 million on stock buybacks. Do you not see the irony here? "

WHAT ? ? ? ? Do you think that a company struggling with sales should not do a $ 700 M buy back ? Is that your IRONY ?

Again, I NEVER said a company struggling with sales should not do a $700 M buyback. The irony is the simple fact that a company can lay off 350 workers because of slumping sales and yet spend $700 million on buybacks.

son of witless wrote:

" To be clear, I am not blaming Fatass or his tax policy for the job cuts. I did point out that the tax policy didn't SAVE the jobs like Trump was suggesting they would, but that's not the same thing as blaming his policy FOR the job cuts. "

So if the Trump tax cuts fail to save jobs at even one company, then they are a failure ? Gezz ole Willockers you are a tough hombre.

I didn't say that either. I've made it pretty clear all along that Harley-Davidson is only one example. It was the statement in my original post that I highlighted in red, that shows the total for ALL the buyouts throughout the U.S. economy and the total average increase in wages nation-wide that drills the point I am making. You're so hung up on bickering about the example that you totally miss the bigger argument.

son of witless wrote:

" I don't think "America" is "in economic wars" against other countries. I know that's what your fat-daddy wants you to think because it makes his trade wars appear "patriotic" but I would have thought with all your massive knowledge about free-enterprise, you would know a little more about how globally integrated our economy really is. For instance, when your dreamy white knight slapped tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, he injured the American aerospace industry as a consequence by making their materials more expensive. "

Just because you " don't think "America" is "in economic wars" against other countries " does not make what you think correct.
br " I don't think "America" is &q... (show quote)

I never said I did... the reason why I said "I don't think" is to clearly indicate it's an opinion and that it differs from your opinion that America *is* in an economic war, which is no more provable.

son of witless wrote:

how globally integrated our economy really is " have to do with anything ? ? ?

When the economy is globally integrated, which it is (and that's not my opinion, that *IS* a fact) supply-chains cross borders, a situation that depends on economic cooperation between nations not economic wars. I think (as in this is my opinion) that Trump's trade wars is like hand-to-hand combat with grenades where every attack has as much potential to harm you and your friends as it does your foes.

son of witless wrote:

The Chinese along with the rest of our trading partners take screwing America over on trade very seriously.

Well they do NOW thanks to Trump's belligerence.

son of witless wrote:

President Trump is the first pro American Trade President of the post WW2 era.

That has yet to be proven. Like I said, hand-to-hand combat with grenades... Trump's tariffs are pretty reckless and though he might score some points with specific industries he is nevertheless doing a LOT of damage to American trade in the process.

son of witless wrote:

A lot of what has gone on had to do with America taking care of nations like
W. Germany and Japan during the Cold War because they had lost their traditional markets.

That's actually not true. If you knew anything about the Marshal Plans you would know these were not the charitable give-aways as described by cold-war propaganda. They were business deals in which the U.S. leveraged the advantage of being the only developed nation that didn't get consumed by the war (too far to be bombed - only fought half the war) to secure economic advantages. Japan for instance, as part of the Marshal Plan was only allowed to buy oil from U.S. suppliers. Both Japan and Germany had paid the U.S back for all the money they borrowed plus interest way back in the 70's, but the propaganda just kept playing that "everyone owes the U.S." tune and it's become a pillar of conservative folklore.

son of witless wrote:

Then when China was opened up we allowed them to screw us on trade so as to engage them peacefully and to take advantage of cheap Chinese labor. In the post Cold War World, those strategies are killing us and Trump is discontinuing them.

China wasn't actually screwing us. They were just one of the few trading partners with the power to NOT be screwed by America. You're right to assume that conditions have changed in the post Cold War era. During the Cold War, a large part of the world was underdeveloped. The U.S. used something called free-trade to leverage our economic advantages over these third world countries by getting them to give up their protections and open their markets to the highest bidders, which of course wouldn't be the poor people of said country but wealthy investors from America and Europe. Many countries refused this unfair situation and decided to protect their industries anyway. The U.S. response was a three step process where the upon the failure of one step the next step is taken... These steps are generally public diplomacy, private negotiations (economic hitmen) and military intervention. China was one of the few countries that was able to stand up to all three approaches.

But things HAVE changed... You're right... Much of the third world is developing so the financial advantages in a free-market are no longer guaranteed to favor American business. So now that the free-market isn't as convenient for us we are doing the same thing that we used to attack other countries for doing... protecting our industries. The only differences are that we don't have a super-power threating to destroy us for our policies and as I've said, the economy is far more integrated globally now than it was during the Cold War, which make protectionism a lot less sensible that it used to be.

Trump has found a supporting base among the people that think our unfair Cold War advantages was just us being "great" and he is blowing sunshine up their asses about how we can be "great" again by being hard-asses. But it's going to be impossible for us to play that role as effectively as we did 30 years ago because we simply don't have the same advantages that we did then. Honestly, we could do a lot better for ourselves if we start earning respect like Obama was instead of acting like we still have this big stick and we're going to beat them up with it if they don't submit, especially when the whole world knows better.

I gotta go... I might catch the rest of you post later...
May 24, 2018 13:05:59   #
jack sequim wa wrote:
Your missing the big picture.

What is the overall accross America growth rate, expansion rate.

The focus is HD jobs 800, yet stand back and see the hundreds of thousands through business growth and expansion.

Why do some think corporate buyback and investor profits are a bad thing. When it only strengthens HD's long term financial position?


First of all I'm not "missing" the big picture. I'm pointing out one particular pattern INSIDE the big picture. What you're doing here jack, is your trying to side-step the issue. It's like trying to deny that a patient has colon cancer by pointing out how healthy his other parts are. Well, I'm not talking about the overall health of the economy, jack. I'm talking specifically about the corporate stock buybacks that hit a record $178 billion in the first three months of 2018 while average hourly earnings for American workers are up only 67 cents over the past year.

So far, the knee-jerk responses from the OPP guardians of Trump's eggshell image completely miss this particular trend. All the reactions (not counting insults) fall into only two basic arguments... One is that Harley-Davidson is struggling (which does little to explain their $700 million in buybacks) and the other is that the economy over all is looking good (which has no bearing on the pattern in question).

I'm not actually expecting any real argument here and I'd be surprised of this thread get's past 3 pages. I expect people on the right to abandon the argument like they did with my previous thread about Trump's attacks on working class Americans, when I mentioned the fiduciary rule. None of the Trump supporters had a counter argument, nor did they show any indication that they even understood the issue. They just walked away because they didn't like the conversation.

This is why I am bringing these issues up. Not only to show how little Trump supporters actually understand about what the Trump administration (and the Republican Party) is doing, but how little they care to know. I choose these issues in particular because they are simple enough on their own to make conclusions without involving unproven theories, complicated relations or speculation. I'm not discounting the possibility that I could be wrong either, but so far no one has shown this to be the case. If there is something I am missing it has yet to be mentioned.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with buybacks either. Buybacks are an effective way to increase the value of shares by reducing the number of shares in the market (supply and demand). The point is that we can't make the assumption that much of the money a company saves from a tax cut will trickle down to the worker which is really the entire premise of the conservative argument that led people to support the tax cut. Noting the record breaking buybacks in contrast to the tiny uptick in wages is a pretty clear indication that more of the tax savings is going to the investors on Wall Street than to the workers on Main Street.

Neither the descriptions of Harley-Davidson as a struggling company or the overall economy as a bull market have any impact on this rather simple conclusion.
May 24, 2018 06:51:44   #
Radiance3 wrote:
==================
I would not believe your FAKE news, unless an independent CPA would provide analysis of the corporate situation, and how its business projections present. I just don't rely on liberal news forecasts anybody else's dumb analysis and projection of a business condition. It must be proven, with facts, future independent analysis not with liberal political dumb assessment who hates president Trump. Disgusting!

What I presented WAS fact... The 800 lost jobs are not someone's opinion, nor are they a projection. The $700 million in stock buybacks are also fact. A company can't lay off 800 workers or buy back $700 million of it's own stock without leaving a trail of public records. These facts are recorded by the Labor Department, the Securities Exchange Commission and the IRS. Just because Vox cited these facts doesn't mean they invented them.

Sometimes I forget what subscribers you people are. Instead of using you own brains to assess what a news source is presenting, you just identify the source as liberal or conservative and believe or disbelieve accordingly. This would explain your dismissal of the story as "FAKE news" based on it's source before you even gave yourself a chance to understand what is actually being said. Heck, I didn't even know Vox was considered "liberal".

Radiance3 wrote:

Currently our overall economy is doing great. The Gross Domestic Product is at 3% which is gearing to a high of 4% toward the end of this year, according to Sec. of Treasury Mnuchin. Overall, most people work, they produce, and pay taxes to the Federal Government. During the dumb Obama years, most of them are handouts, on welfare and food stamps. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars feeding them. Now, they produce and contribute to the system instead of feeding them.

Current unemployment is at its lowest at 3.9%, blacks at 6.7%, and Hispanics went down as well. Asians have always lowest unemployment rate. Most of them work, and have reached college level degrees, or higher. Next to Whites, Asians have the most educated population in the US.
br Currently our overall economy is doing great.... (show quote)

See, this is how I know how clueless you are... None of the points I made have ANY bearing on ANYTHING you just stated. I didn't say the economy was stagnant, I didn't say unemployment was high. Do you even know what I said? Or did everything just blank out when you saw what I said about your POS president?
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 380 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2018 IDF International Technologies, Inc.