The Reality of the Trump Economy

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by themystic

Its a bonding moment. I only know one skank that is actually a Trump supporter

Aww that's so childish, almost innocent in fact. You actually believe a provider is telling you the truth. Bet they praise you as a lover and comment on your package. Wink Wink.

They are simply taking advantage of the great Trump economy.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Mystic, I didn't say it did. Economic growth, wage growth, and employment growth are more important. However, I suspect that your figures do not include stocks held by pension and other retirement funds. Add that to the "less than 50% of Americans" who own stock and it's significant. To the extent that higher share prices reflect higher corporate earnings, which should correlate with a better economy (i.e. higher wages, more jobs, more investment in the private sector), they're good for all.

actually they do include those stocks held by pensions funds etc. unlike some I applaud a good economy. I would rather have a good economy under trump than a bad economy under a democrat. Having said that I would rather have good moral character over bad moral character. wood I take good moral character and bad economy over bad oral character and a good economy? give me the bad economy. Ive been on that operating table with lots of money in the bank. didn't mean much to me

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by themystic

actually they do include those stocks held by pensions funds etc. unlike some I applaud a good economy. I would rather have a good economy under trump than a bad economy under a democrat. Having said that I would rather have good moral character over bad moral character. wood I take good moral character and bad economy over bad oral character and a good economy? give me the bad economy. Ive been on that operating table with lots of money in the bank. didn't mean much to me

We've discussed the Central Provident Fund in Singapore, which funds retirement and healthcare. They give people the option of putting part of their savings in stocks. I'd like to see something like that in the USA in place of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. That would increase share ownership and also help the guy who's on the operating table with money in the bank.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by Tiny

We've discussed the Central Provident Fund in Singapore, which funds retirement and healthcare. They give people the option of putting part of their savings in stocks. I'd like to see something like that in the USA in place of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. That would increase share ownership and also help the guy who's on the operating table with money in the bank.

I absolutely agree with that. However, even the mention of it gets shrieked off the table by the left.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Tiny

We've discussed the Central Provident Fund in Singapore, which funds retirement and healthcare. They give people the option of putting part of their savings in stocks. I'd like to see something like that in the USA in place of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. That would increase share ownership and also help the guy who's on the operating table with money in the bank.

So how does that equate to the new breed of hate politics that has become acceptable

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by themystic

So how does that equate to the new breed of hate politics that has become acceptable

I was personally unaware that the Trump economy as a whole had anything to do with the new breed of LIBERAL hate politics.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by themystic

So how does that equate to the new breed of hate politics that has become acceptable

Mystic, This idea would unify Americans in hate. Most Republican and Democratic politicians would hate it, as it would more than double government mandated employer and employee contributions for government funded retirement and healthcare. The Democrats would really hate it because it doesn't cater to the fallacy that the wealthy make enough income to pay for retirement and healthcare for all Americans. The drug companies and the insurance companies would hate it because for the first time in a long time there would be a free market and competition in healthcare, except for catastrophic illnesses for which government insurance would kick in. And while there would be exceptions like eccielover (I think) and me, most Americans like living hand to mouth existences and saving zip for retirement and emergencies. They'd be forced to save with this.

[pleasurem]

We know how wise 18 year olds are ( not )

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by pleasurem

We know how wise 18 year olds are ( not )

You mean 16 year olds?

[RamTheJam]

How many jobs did the Steelers create last month?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by RamTheJam

How many jobs did the Steelers create last month?

Hahaha... sans LeVeon Bell and Antonio Brown they now have room under the salary cap to create a shitload of jobs! So pay attention, rammer!

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by pleasurem

The next thing O’Dumbass accomplishes will be the first thing... he was in over his head, fools re-elected him... FOOLS!!!

There is a reason why over 65 million Americans voted for Obama not once but twice, eight years of Bush and Dick Cheney was eight years too much.

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

There is a reason why over 65 million Americans voted for Obama not once but twice, eight years of Bush and Dick Cheney was eight years too much.

Like the first four years of Reagan...followed by the LARGEST land slide in history...real true conservatism sell every time and we haven't had that since.
Look at the map of the country...https://www.redbubble.com/people/arc...xoCECIQAvD_BwE
You'll most likely NEVER see something like that AGAIN!!

I don't want to fail to mention Nixon 72'(Republican)
https://www.270towin.com/1972_Election/


His second election was a TOTAL and COMPLETE mandate of true Conservative principles which no left wing President can or has ever immulated!!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by bb1961

Like the first four years of Reagan...followed by the LARGEST land slide in history...real true conservatism sell every time and we haven't had that since.
Look at the map of the country...https://www.redbubble.com/people/arc...xoCECIQAvD_BwE
You'll most likely NEVER see something like that AGAIN!!

I don't want to fail to mention Nixon 72'(Republican)
https://www.270towin.com/1972_Election/

His second election was a TOTAL and COMPLETE mandate of true Conservative principles which no left wing President can or has ever immulated!!

Immulated??

To be clear, I voted for Reagan twice. But the fact is that in 1936 FDR, a rather left wing Democrat, beat Alf Landon 531 electoral votes to 8. Reagan's electoral vote victory in 1984 was 525-13. Reagan got 59% of the popular vote and FDR 61%. So your last statement is incorrect. And your statement that Reagan's 1984 win was the largest land slide in history is incorrect.

However, I think Reagan's margin of victory in 1984 will not be duplicated in a long, long time, if ever, by either party.

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Immulated??

To be clear, I voted for Reagan twice. But the fact is that in 1936 FDR, a rather left wing Democrat, beat Alf Landon 531 electoral votes to 8. Reagan's electoral vote victory in 1984 was 525-13. Reagan got 59% of the popular vote and FDR 61%. So your last statement is incorrect. And your statement that Reagan's 1984 win was the largest land slide in history is incorrect.

However, I think Reagan's margin of victory in 1984 will not be duplicated in a long, long time, if ever, by either party.

https://www.thoughtco.com/landslide-...-votes-3367489
Wrong again Speed...let chim-chim take over!!
Republican Ronald Reagan won the most electoral votes of ANY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY, 525. But that was after seven more electoral votes were added to the prize. His 525 electoral votes represented 97.6 percent of all 538 electoral votes.



Nixon did it in 72'(republican)

You definitely would never admit why staunch conservatism sells every time either

I see you conveniently left out the make up of the electoral college at that time (allotted votes) in regards to fdr...Reagan only lost one state as Nixon and fdr lost two...parse it anyway you like.
I have no problem saying I a proud staunch conservative...but MANY on the left have a problem identifying as liberal...now it's "democratic socialist" or progressive...what ever the fuck that means?? Why not be proud of you ideology instead of changing the terminology to make it more obscure.

AOC has turned the DEMS up side down..."raw new deal" the spineless left voting "present"...that bitch will the down fall of that party.

By the way fdr's politics would NEVER sell today...on the other hand Reagan's ideology would win landslides over and over AGAIN!!
I will give you an A++++ for effort...but still you failed!!