Meanwhile, these same businesses are also investing in expansion, hiring more people as a result, and the same year write-offs on new equipment, vehicles, etc creates jobs as well.

Unemployment numbers haven't been decreasing by magic. Bonuses to existing employees, pay increases, all are real.

The malarkey about the tax cuts being for the rich are otherwise BS. The 10k cap on deducting city and state taxes from federal returns, for example -- middle class and below don't pay anywhere near that amount in local income tax. On top of that, the standard deduction is doubled. Again, that only benefits middle class and below.

Cutting corporate tax from the highest on the planet to 21% better enabled U.S. firms to compete globally and sh**canning Obama's overbearing regulations allowed them to operate here instead of outsourcing jobs.

Capitalism is about greed, which is good when it means that jobs are created to accommodate it.

Many of these jobs go to people who can least afford not to be working because they don't earn enough to save much and are mired in the usual: Mortgage, sewage and water, homeowner's insurance, property taxes, car payments, car insurance, utilities, health insurance (when not an employee benefit), kids' education, family entertainment, food and clothing, etc.

Job openings now exceed applicants, which invariably means that wages will increase. In the 1960s and 70s we called it an 'employees market.'

As far as those buybacks are concerned, so what? Anything that eventually puts more money into the company's hands only provides more investment capital, and that means more job creation.

More tax revenue for the government to operate and lower income tax at the same time.

What I'm seeing is our capitalist republic's economy beginning to work like it's supposed to. More able bodied people working for a living rather than sponging off the taxpayer.

More money in people's pockets, therefore more money being spent in the private sector and that in turn creates jobs.

Very simple concept.

Can give any examples, or is it simply political rhetoric?

[quote=kemmer]Now if only no one cared about g****l w*****g, losing allies, being laughed at, or coal waste again being dumped into our streams and rivers.[/quote

It's easy for the many who are employed and living well to embrace social issues and environmental concerns while not giving much thought to the fortunes and/ or misfortunes of fellow Americans they have never met nor heard of, nor to the industries and types of jobs they either work at or, for geographic reasons, are available to them. That is largely human nature.

However, it IS the government's job to represent all U.S. citizens, not simply those who live well in major population centers.

Trump, unlike his predecessor, is doing just that.
.
Before they deal with social injustice and the environment et al, our leaders need to concern themselves with the basics, such as making sure that Americans have the opportunity to earn a living, not being forced to scrape by on some minimal dole because of well heeled special interests' agendas.

As far as our "allies" are concerned, it's always been the U.S. that finances, protects and defends them at the sacrifice of our own blood and treasure, yet when we need their cooperation we rarely have an easy time getting it. Most of our "allies" have taken advantage of America forever, at least until now. Trump is making them pony up, as with NATO.

As far as the environment goes, while we haven't produced instant gratification, we are well ahead of most other countries in cleaning up the messes generated by the first several decades of the industrial revolution, and we are way ahead of countries like China and India.

Meanwhile, Americans are working and there are projections that by sometime next year unemployment could hit 3%, taxes are lower across the board and wages, those not forced higher through legislation, are rising on their own.

All in all, the country's in much better shape today, at least on the issues that count to most Americans, than it was two years ago.

Be that as it may, what he is doing, tariffs included, is getting results favorable to the United States. Even China has begun lowering some of their tariffs on American imports -- if you look for news of that at Google, you may have to get past a few pages to where positive news regarding Trump is buried.

All Trump has to know is basic math, asset/ deficit stuff, to know when we're being short changed. It's not rocket science.

As far as shooting from the hip goes, his marksmanship so far has proven itself a whole lot more accurate than his predecessor's.

[/quote]
Oops, I put my reply before your comment. I'll get this right yet...

The same, because I firmly believe that what Trump is doing is simply trying to even the economic playing field. For many decades, our trade relationships with other countries, including our two neighbors, has been badly skewed so that it has cost Americans jobs while creating employment in other countries.

President Trump's intention is to do what our government is supposed to do -- maintain a favorable environment for the businesses that provide jobs for Americans, which in turn creates more tax revenue while eliminating the taxpayers' expense of having to prop up unemployed citizens.

Remember, he is a businessman, not a politician, and what he's doing is simply good business without political motives, totally results oriented.

The problem many people have with this concept is that we're accustomed to being governed by professional politicians who have little to no seat of the pants private sector business experience; they only specialize in running for office, giving political speeches and spending the people's money.

Trump doesn't fit that template, so he's viewed with misplaced suspicion. He is our employee, and he is giving us the kind of devotion and hard work he expects from his own employees as a private sector businessman.

As far as his trade agreements with Mexico and Canada are concerned, they're getting no different treatment than any of our other trading partners around the world, on an America First basis. The three country agreement is set up as such only because it replaces NAFTA.
=Sicilianthing]>>>>

I can see your points and I will read the entire bill when I get my hands on it to see if Trump has removed the threats, but if he hasn’t then what will you think and say ?[/quote]

I think you have it backwards, there. The accuser's story is the shaky one, she "doesn't remember" the location or even the year, and her "witnesses" don't even remember anything happening at all, including the party she's claiming this occurred at.

Kavanaugh has no recollection of any of it, and remember, he's the accused; it's the accuSER's job to supply the evidence, and she has supplied nothing but an accusation.

Thanks.

My first comment here, sorry.

Still figuring out the schematics.

Actually, during the George W. Bush Administration this WAS an intended goal, with the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America), when Bush and his counterparts in Mexico and Canada endeavored to spring this concept on us in a stealthy way, including an end run around Congress.

The SPP held summits wherein only the three leaders and the U.S. Foreign Relations Committee were permitted access, no media allowed.

Their goal was to have a North American Union under the SPP© brand established by 2010, but it never reached fruition.

That said, a North American Union would be the farthest thing from President Trump's mind, because unlike our "esteemed" political left, this POTUS has demonstrated rather forcefully that he believes completely in U.S. sovereignty.

You'll also note that he was an avid supporter of Brexit, and in his recent U.N. address he made it quite plain that he disapproves of any country thus (such as EU members) giving up their respective sovereignties for a t***snational collective.

Therefore, I believe that wherever this theory that the Trump Administration would countenance a North American Union originated, it should be returned to with a note that a conspiracy theory should have a better foundation if it is even to be considered.

Try this: Did you watch the Fine Steen's face during Kavanaugh's testimony? It was stone cold, just like the rest of the Democrats'faces.
Why? Because they knew they were in the midst of completely, remorselessly destroying the reputation and family of a totally innocent man in the name of a political agenda.

I don't know where you come from, what you believe nor what your conception of decency happens to be, so let me clue you in.

The Kavanaughs are a wholesome Christian family that is accustomed to dealing with honest and decent people. The judge served his country from the bench, not as a politician. What the Fine Steen and her politically, "end justifies the means" corrupt fellow Democrats did was d**g Brett Kavanaugh, his good name and his family into the cesspool that is their sphere of existence, not his.

Good, honest human beings are not even mildly accustomed to that kind of evil filth, so being ambushed by it, being d**gged down into it was undoubtedly a profoundly overwhelming experience, like having someone you've never seen before walk up, curse you and stab you in the gut. To the Kavanaughs, this was a horror that came out of left field.

How would you deal with something like that? From my point of view, I was watching a man who's been all but traumatized by this totally malevolent force that has come down on him like a ton of bricks.

And you, woodguru, think any previous justices, even Clarence Thomas, experienced anything like that? You think a completely human reaction disqualifies him from fulfilling the responsibilities of a justice on the Court?

You either don't get out much, or have less empathy than a snake