Dow, NASDAQ, S&P All-Time Highs

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I'm forgetting NOTHING. I give no credit to Obama for the attack on Bin Laden's compound and his death. I also give no credit to Trump regarding Baghdadi. Whether or not one POTUS was in office and one was not when the event was initiated or occurred is irrelevant.

Just keep thinking that bullshit. If Slick Willie had taken out bin Laden after the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya as he had the opportunity to do this whole world would be different.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Just keep thinking that bullshit. If Slick Willie had taken out bin Laden after the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya as he had the opportunity to do this whole world would be different.

If you hadn't cheered on the Iraq War....we'd be 7 Trillion dollars richer according to Donald Trump!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

If you hadn't cheered on the Iraq War....we'd be 7 Trillion dollars richer according to Donald Trump!

If Slick Willie had taken out bin Laden after the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya as he had the opportunity to do there wouldn't have been a fuckin' second stage to the Iraq war.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Just keep thinking that bullshit. If Slick Willie had taken out bin Laden after the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya as he had the opportunity to do this whole world would be different.

You make it sound so easy.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

I disagree with the 46 percent who do not benefit from the stock market. Like Eccielover stated they benefit indirectly from the market. Here's a small example - when I was in property management and the market was doing well, the companies would pay for everything - education,meals,trips,ect. When the market started going down the first thing I saw cut was education classes. You could still go - but you had to pay for it yourself. The second thing was no pay raises. The third thing was any item on the property that was not in complete disarray - stayed - no replacements. And the last one - and this is the one that got me - the companies would require that you attend company events. Like I said these were huge events and they paid for everything. The next year we were told to ask our vendors for "contributions" to the party to help pay for it. The following year - we had to purchase a ticket to attend the party - so we could help offset expenses. And then I got laid off. Along with other employees. And I was told it was because of the market. I just recently spoke to a friend of mine in property management. We both chuckled because things are back to the way the were - property owners are paying again for all employee benefits.

And they all know it's because of Trump.

Back in 1980 Ronald Reagan won the POTUS election basically by asking voters in this country to ask themselves on simple question -- are YOU better off financially than you were 4 years ago. Very few could say "Yes" and Reagan won easily.

When voters in 2020 ask themselves that same question, if they haven't benefited DIRECTLY from the increase in the stock market, it is doubtful that will come to mind as a plus. The question will be answered by how the economy has treated them since Trump took office. In my case -- I got a nice bump from lower income taxes. A positive. On the other hand, tariffs and overall cost-of-living are negatively impacting me on a daily basis. I got a 2.8% increase in Social Security benefits but not in pensions. So the Cost-of-Living went up 2.8% but my income did not. And the Cost-of-Living does not factor in food prices which have risen quite a bit.

So bottom line I doubt my purchasing power has not gone down in recent years. Many other voters could say the same thing.

As for your experience with your company. I worked for a major corporation. The benefits we received were based on company PROFITS, not the stock market. Since Trump took office, the stock is DOWN 22% even though profits are in the billions. The question is whether or not the company has tightened its belt, as your company did. I don't know. But the decision would be made based on the bottom-line, not the price per share of its stock in the stock market.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

I think they went largely out on a limb without really good backing or taking anomolies into account. There were lots of this will be how it is, but it's largely all supposition. Nobody predicted the recent jobs numbers, yet they happened again and previous months adjusted upward again.

We are seeing historically high good results that continue to defy the odds, and yet it's being historically downplayed by many.

Defying the odds? Job numbers have been solid every month for years and year, dating back to the Obama years and coming out of the recession.

Employment increased by 136,000 in September. For 2019, the average has been 161,000. It was 223,000 in 2018. Not trending in the right direction.

Yes, predictions, especially regarding the economy, are based on guesswork and assumptions. It is fairly definite though that the GDP will end up in the low 2s for 2019. If tariffs remain in place and more are added, it is doubtful the GDP will be higher in 2020.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

If Slick Willie had taken out bin Laden after the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya as he had the opportunity to do there wouldn't have been a fuckin' second stage to the Iraq war.

There probably would have ust been someone else to take up the slack....plus you were trying to impeach Clinton. Now go hit your favorite hookie bong....

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

There probably would have ust been someone else to take up the slack....plus you were trying to impeach Clinton. Now go hit your favorite hookie bong....

Using the office of the presidency to suborn perjury is a crime. Using the office of the presidency to solve a 2016 crime is part of the job description.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Using the office of the presidency to suborn perjury is a crime. Using the office of the presidency to solve a 2016 crime is part of the job description.

[Austin Ellen]

Speed, your cost of living is high due to Austin. Outside Austin - it's not. Down here in San Antonio - it's a dream.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Back in 1980 Ronald Reagan won the POTUS election basically by asking voters in this country to ask themselves on simple question -- are YOU better off financially than you were 4 years ago. Very few could say "Yes" and Reagan won easily.

When voters in 2020 ask themselves that same question, if they haven't benefited DIRECTLY from the increase in the stock market, it is doubtful that will come to mind as a plus. The question will be answered by how the economy has treated them since Trump took office. In my case -- I got a nice bump from lower income taxes. A positive. On the other hand, tariffs and overall cost-of-living are negatively impacting me on a daily basis. I got a 2.8% increase in Social Security benefits but not in pensions. So the Cost-of-Living went up 2.8% but my income did not. And the Cost-of-Living does not factor in food prices which have risen quite a bit.

So bottom line I doubt my purchasing power has not gone down in recent years. Many other voters could say the same thing.

As for your experience with your company. I worked for a major corporation. The benefits we received were based on company PROFITS, not the stock market. Since Trump took office, the stock is DOWN 22% even though profits are in the billions. The question is whether or not the company has tightened its belt, as your company did. I don't know. But the decision would be made based on the bottom-line, not the price per share of its stock in the stock market.

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Obama's market moves were much stronger (higher) during his Presidency, yet you trash him. building permits as well. Dan Quale bragged about seeing "help wanted" signs, too, that was funny shit.

Yes it was great when Obama was President - oil was over 100 per barrel - good times.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

Yes it was great when Obama was President - oil was over 100 per barrel - good times.

You have heard of fracking , right?

The delivery systems are continuing to come on line.

That is not due to Bush, Obama or Trump. None of them shit this oil and gas or invented the technology.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

Yes it was great when Obama was President - oil was over 100 per barrel - good times.

it was equally great when GW Bush moved oil prices well over $100 per barrel, after he ignored Louisiana in 2005, applauding the destruction Katrina did to the Negroes who should have voted for him

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

it was equally great when GW Bush moved oil prices well over $100 per barrel, after he ignored Louisiana in 2005, applauding the destruction Katrina did to the Negroes who should have voted for him

once again you seem to be fact challenged .. how shocking!


Obama administration unveils new fracking rules

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...well/25101133/


Trump to repeal Obama fracking rule

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...-fracking-rule

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

it was equally great when GW Bush moved oil prices well over $100 per barrel, after he ignored Louisiana in 2005, applauding the destruction Katrina did to the Negroes who should have voted for him

It is certainly in the best interest of all races to vote for capitalists who provide a fine economy like Mr. Trump has. Trump actively pursues policies to lower the price of oil as well as promotes sustainable trade and economic policies which have had a positive effect on the economy.

A President can only take so much credit for the hard work and ingenuity of the American people, as well as the ample resources of land and water that were freely donated to the European settlers from the generous previous indigenous inhabitants, although title transfer was occasionally accompanied by generous considerations in places like Manhattan.