President Trump - Page 135 - Politics version 7.0 -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Two Plus Two Forums Archived Forums Archived Other Topics Politics version 7.0

President Trump

...

Page 135 of 562

First

35 85 115 125 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 145 155 185 235 335

Last

Page 135 of 562

First

35 85 115 125 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 145 155 185 235 335

Last

03-10-2017 , 01:38 PM

#3351

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

https://twitter.com/samsteinhp/statu...07106737340420

03-10-2017 , 01:40 PM

#3352

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

^ oh my god this is phenomenal

03-10-2017 , 01:54 PM

#3353

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Ryancare ****s over Trump voters the hardest

lol Trump supporters got fooled into voting for standard GOP orthodoxy from top to bottom

03-10-2017 , 01:55 PM

#3354

bahbahmickey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 15,254

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

In all this tribalism you're kind of missing the point. Obama was going to end up with a bigger economy than what he started out with. Period. The economy was going to improve barring almost anything Obama did. It might improve a couple of points more or less depending on his specific policies but overall the ship was already moving in a direction and the US President can only turn the rudder a little bit. Trump is going to have good employment numbers for a bit because that's the way the economy is heading, regardless of what Trump does. Obama's "socialism" wasn't going to destroy the economy and Trump's deregulation and tax cuts aren't going to unleash prosperity because the tax cuts are going to be at the margins, they're not going to change anything fundamental.

Saying trump won't necessarily be better than obama for the economy and the stock market based off everything he is likely to get done in his 8 years would be incorrect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoBoy321

That's a silly metric. The economy may have grown faster after the 2001 recession, but it ended in the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. Measuring from the bottom to the top and ignoring 2008/09, is dishonest.

What happened in '08 is unrelated to the recovery that started in '01. We can say with great confidence if trump, bush, or almost any other president was in power between 08-16 our economy would be larger today. If higher taxes, more regulation and bigger government were the keys to a growing economy Greece & Ireland (to name a few) would have avoided bankruptcy and would have some of the largest economies in the world.

03-10-2017 , 01:57 PM

#3355

PoBoy321

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 9,982

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

It's absolutely related. It was driven in no small part by a real estate market buoyed by easy credit and a lax regulatory environment that resulted in the housing bubble and ensuing crash.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

03-10-2017 , 01:59 PM

#3356

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

We can say with great confidence if trump, bush, or almost any other president was in power between 08-16 our economy would be larger today.

uhhhhhh no, you don't get to just make blind assertions like this with zero expertise on the subject

03-10-2017 , 02:01 PM

#3357

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

Quote:

Why would middle class people have less money to spend under Trump?

Well, RepubliCare is one big reason so far.

Quote:

Getting back to this for a second, here is why RepubliCare would be a complete disaster. Ignore for a second the fact that 15 million will lose their insurance. By scaling Medicaid back to pre-ACA levels, significantly cutting subsidies by making them tax cuts and also by making them age-adjusted rather than income-adjusted, and other changes that could potentially cause insurerers to continue to flee the market or even do so more, one of the few actual problems with ACA. Policies will be more expensive and less durable (less solid benefit to consumers especially if a health disaster happens) and healthy people will drop out of the market. The 30% surcharge if you lack continuous coverage will also cause people that are currently uninsured to stay out of the market unless they have a very good reason to get insurance--unless they are already sick or get sick in a bad way.

This will lead to higher premiums as the risk pools get thrown off. The higher premiums will lead to another round of clients dropping out of the market as their costs go up--but remember, the really sick clients are not dropping out. It's the healthy ones. So the premiums get jacked up again to cover those extra costs. Before you know it, insurance premiums are much more expensive than they were under ACA. With the many minimum standards for coverage removed in favor of a more free market stance, consumers will stay away from health insurance if they don't really need it as they don't want to get scammed into buying a bad plan with high premiums and little coverage. Stories will start going around quickly. Emergency rooms and unpaid hospital bills will become a much bigger burden on the system, similar to pre-ACA but even worse. This in turn will jack up premiums again (somebody has to pay for that), and well, death spiral.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...care-plan.html

Quote:

Analysts at the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated these subsidies for every county in the United States across these three variables. The result, shown in the maps above, reveals stark contrasts in federal support, particularly for lower-income Americans.

The biggest losers under the change would be older Americans with low incomes who live in high-cost areas. Those are the people who benefited most from Obamacare.

For some people, the new tax credit system will be more generous. The winners are likely to be younger, earn higher incomes and live in areas where the cost of health insurance is low.

Obamacare's subsidies were structured to limit how much low- and middle-income Americans could be asked to pay for health insurance. Under the G.O.P. proposal, many of the people whose tax credits would fall sharply would be likely to end up uninsured. For people with few resources, a gap of several thousands of dollars between their tax credit and the cost of coverage would be impossible to make up.

That's why many policy experts believe that the new system would result in fewer Americans having health insurance.

Analysis: House GOP Health Bill Adds Up to Big Tax Cut for the Rich
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/na...415615103.html

Quote:

The biggest tax cut would eliminate a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for high-income individuals and families. Eliminating the tax would save these taxpayers $158 billion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper for Congress.

About 90 percent of the benefit from repealing the tax would go to the top 1 percent of earners, who make $700,000 or more, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Another big tax cut would repeal an extra 0.9 percent Medicare tax on wages above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples. Repealing the tax would save higher income families $117 billion over the next decade.

Repealing the Medicare tax would also speed up the depletion of the Medicare trust fund. It would run out of money in 2025 instead of 2028, as is currently projected, said Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

03-10-2017 , 02:06 PM

#3358

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

When health care is more expensive, the poor and middle class have less money to spend:

https://twitter.com/Slate/status/840236572515655681

03-10-2017 , 02:10 PM

#3359

bahbahmickey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 15,254

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoBoy321

It's absolutely related. It was driven in no small part by a real estate market buoyed by easy credit and a lax regulatory environment that resulted in the housing bubble and ensuing crash.

I agree a big part of '08 was caused by easy credit. However, I'd blame a large part of that on clinton who okayed a bill to twist the arms of bankers to get them to give loans to people who couldn't afford them. Again, blaming Bush for '08 is crazy talk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

uhhhhhh no, you don't get to just make blind assertions like this with zero expertise on the subject

obama was one of the most anti-business and anti-growth presidents we've ever had. Do you disagree with that?

03-10-2017 , 02:15 PM

#3360

PoBoy321

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 9,982

Yes

http://www.macrotrends.net/2482/sp50...e by President

03-10-2017 , 02:15 PM

#3361

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

obama was one of the most anti-business and anti-growth presidents we've ever had. Do you disagree with that?

(don't forget, it got to almost 20k by the end of Obama's term!)

03-10-2017 , 02:16 PM

#3362

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Small government Republicans advance a bill allowing companies to do genetic tests (and see the results!) of their employees as part of wellness programs. Because of course your employer should be able to see your genetics, that's just common sense.

LOL GOP

03-10-2017 , 02:17 PM

#3363

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

Part of what happens when you run insurance through employment. The guy ordering you around also wants to make you turn and cough.

03-10-2017 , 02:18 PM

#3364

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

How is Obama anti-business when he passed ACA (conservative free-market based health insurance reform built by the Heritage Foundation), the auto company and bank bailouts that saved millions of jobs, the stimulus package, AND oversaw the biggest stock market growth in history plus saw unemployment go from >10% to <5%. What about that is anti-business OR anti-growth?

03-10-2017 , 02:21 PM

#3365

13ball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,912

Quote:

Small government Republicans advance a bill allowing companies to do genetic tests (and see the results!) of their employees as part of wellness programs.

If you're against that bill, you are anti-business.

03-10-2017 , 02:26 PM

#3366

batair

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 16,802

When do we get our microchips in our hands.

03-10-2017 , 02:32 PM

#3367

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

The political situation wrt the Trump-Russia situation is disastrous. Trump supporters are so deep into his cult, they are turning on their own Republican members of Congress just for wanting an investigation. Treason is no big deal to these folks as long as it got them their desired candidate for President.

03-10-2017 , 02:53 PM

#3368

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

obama was one of the most anti-business and anti-growth presidents we've ever had. Do you disagree with that?

Pretty sure no one is anti grown except for a small faction of radical environmentalists. "Anti-business" has to belong to FDR by a country mile

Quote:

The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15219

Last edited by Huehuecoyotl; 03-10-2017 at 03:09 PM.

03-10-2017 , 03:02 PM

#3369

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 36,733

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

(don't forget, it got to almost 20k by the end of Obama's term!)

Just shows you how incompetent Obama was. He tried to ruin the economy, but failed hard!

03-10-2017 , 03:59 PM

#3370

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

03-10-2017 , 04:02 PM

#3371

bahbahmickey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 15,254

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoBoy321

Yes

http://www.macrotrends.net/2482/sp50...e by President

I just responded to a mod's request that I not personally attack someone (despite my personal attacks per post ratio being lower than the forum avg.) so I am going to have to be as nice as I can here:

Poboy, you need to think about what you just posted a little more. Do you think there are one or two other factors involved that have an effect on the stock market besides just the president? I look forward to your intelligent and well thought out response.

03-10-2017 , 04:06 PM

#3372

PoBoy321

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 9,982

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

Certainly there are other factors, but I am curious how you can continue to assert that Obama was an anti-growth President, despite presiding over one of the most consistent periods of growth in recent American history. Certainly, you must have access to some other metric or piece of evidence that I have not yet been able to find to back up what you have to say. I am confident that you will provide it soon, because otherwise, your baseless assertions in the absence of evidence and in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, would necessarily mean that you are simply lying for the purpose of promoting some kind of partisan agenda. And since I know that that can't possibly be true, I look forward to seeing you back up what you have to say.

03-10-2017 , 04:14 PM

#3373

juan valdez

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 5,686

i highly recommend anyone posting the dow as evidence that obama was great for the economy go ahead and post the important reasons why the dow doesn't tell us the whole story. if you come up empty handed or don't think there are compelling reasons this doesn't tell the whole story, then youre just ignorant and cherry picking data for confirmation bias

also, being able to articulate how incomplete the dow graph is to your argument doesn't mean you don't think obama was great for the economy, it just demonstrates that you're not ignorant

03-10-2017 , 04:20 PM

#3374

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoBoy321

This is pretty easy though. Sure Obama lead the recovery, but the recovery could have been even better! All he had to do was lower taxes on the wealthy and middle class, cut regulation, cut spending on the poors, etc. The trick to this is this orthodoxy can never fail, it can only be failed. Obama recovered the economy without it? Could have been better. Caused economic collapse? That was something else. Shown to not have much of an impact like in Kansas and Wisconsin while doing a lot of harm to certain groups? It'll be coming soon and be better for everyone!

03-10-2017 , 04:23 PM

#3375

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Quote:

Dear Speaker Ryan,

This week, the Committees on Energy & Commerce and Ways & Means will be marking up Republicans’ long-feared bill to dismantle affordable health care. The GOP legislation will have life or death consequences for tens of millions of families across America, and extraordinary impacts on state and federal budgets long into the future.

The American people and Members have a right to know the full impact of this legislation before any vote in Committee or by the whole House.

Well played troll by Polosi

http://www.mediaite.com/columnists/n...ore-it-passes/

Page 135 of 562

First

35 85 115 125 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 145 155 185 235 335

Last

...

Page 135 of 562

First

35 85 115 125 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 145 155 185 235 335

Last