It's not just that, it puts him at odds with the data. I'm taking an Environmental Biology class, and we were lectured on this exact topic today and two days ago.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...mperature.html

Unsurprisingly, Trump either is lying or is incompetent enough that he didn't know that his National Security Adviser was paying to play with a foreign entity.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...ng-about-flynn

I love all the downturn predictions. Tax cuts, less of a push for higher MW, repealing Obamacare and less regulation is going to kill the economy and the stock market. Lol.

To answer the question about what trump has done to help the market: he has said the above things which is in stark contrast for another 4 years of Obama/Hillary slow growth.

https://twitter.com/DLin71/status/840043055864532993

Do you know where market demand comes from? It comes from people having money to spend. If people (working + middle class, who drive the majority of spending) don't have any money to spend, the economy can and will suffer.

The S&P 500 has grown at about 7%/yr on average over its whole history. This is ultimately true under presidents of both parties, high tax and low tax environments, increased and decreased regulations. Eventually, this will revert to the mean, and it will be very painful for a lot of people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2001-2008: Republican president = tax cuts, higher MW, Obamacare doesn't exist yet, less regulation...and the bottom falls out of the market
2009-2016: Democrat president = higher taxes, more of a push for higher MW, Obamacare becomes law, more regulation...market finishes with record highs

You are so very, very bad at this game mickey

I had no idea.

They hav enough tools to create a lot of problems, but not so much to build a good economy all by themselves.

I'm glad for the sake of the Kurds that Flynn is out.

You are correct that any republican replacement for the ACA will leave many with virtually worthless coverage with real premiums. However this was never the case with the ACA as insurance plans had a long list of requisites they had to cover. The republicans are angling to remove everything that might be claimed while maintaining premium collections for the insurance industry.

https://twitter.com/JGreenDC/status/839951423945261056

Stealing from einbert's post in alpha:

Male Illinois rep asks why men should have to pay for prenatal coverage

LOL GOP

It's wierd that religious Conservatives don't ever put the pro family aspect of religion into actual legislative policy. Pagan and atheistic Sweden has better 'pro family' policies than the US. I guess the fusion of libertarian small government with the religious groups prevents them from doing that and just focus on hating gays or whatever.

They could certainly promote tax cuts, deregulation and things like that to create a boom. The problem lies in the inevitable bust. My belief is that due to bond rates increasing due to uncertainty, investors are moving money out of the bond market and into securities. Stock prices are set by supply and demand, so the more money in the ecosystem looking for a place to go, the higher demand, and higher prices. Once it's realized that the underlying assets don't in fact have the valuation they're getting, I predict a pretty significant contraction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is actually an on-topic post when directed at the thread title.

Cross-posted from the other forum:

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.

They read as far as 'my cup runneth over' and blew their loads.

From what I'm reading about the jobs report today this seems like fake news

Why do you think the middle class will have less money to spend under Trump?

Writing "lolsamplesize" should do enough to let you know how terrible your post is, but I am going to add to it.

Insinuating the bottom falling out of the market on one president (especially in this case when clinton had more to do w/ 2008 than Bush did) is ignorant.

Also, "higher taxes, more of a push for higher MW, Obamacare becomes law, more regulation" under obama led to the slowest economic recovery the USA has ever had in its history... EVER.

Yeah!!!! This guy is a big sexist!!!!!

Why shouldn't men have to subsidize women's pregnancy and overall higher costs for health insurance since they play a roll in getting them pregnant in the same way women subsidize men's higher car insurance premiums because they tend to drive more (often times driving their female SO around)? If you disagree that we should all pay the same for insurance regardless of sex you are a big fat sexist man.

Women subsidize tons of men's health care costs like Viagra, prostate cancer treatments. In fact, the entire basis of any insurance program, including car insurance, is that you will pay to cover benefits which you won't use, but others will, and others will pay to cover benefits that you will use, and they won't.

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.

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.

And yet here you are writing posts asserting that in a sample size of 1 (the Trump administration) the market will continue to go up because of underlying structural factors that you acknowledge right here are subject to wild variance!

How are you so good at making my own point for me, mickey?