It's the Economy, Stupid!

[oxmixmudd]

I don't own any stocks if that's what you were implying. I run my own internet business so I'm not really reliant on how the economy does, and I live a very minimal lifestyle. I don't even own an automobile. So you might want to check your judgmentalism

I'm not posting in any sort of specific sense that is implied by your response above. The general attitude is one of affluence before morality or integrity. Hence the quote of Franklin, and the source of my sarcasm.

The reality is, If trump has done what he's accused of doing, we should realize we would be better off in the long run with a worse, or even a bad economy than with a president willing to abuse the power of the office and undermine US national security and the integrity of the election process in that way.

"But the economy is great ..." means we are right on the precipice Benjamin Franklin was talking about.

[seer]

Many of them at great expense to the environment.

Not great expense, some expense. And as the meeting in Madrid showed, even those committed to the Paris accord can not agree on anything or move forward. So please spare me the outrage...

[oxmixmudd]

Not great expense, some expense. And as the meeting in Madrid showed, even those committed to the Paris accord can not agree on anything or move forward. So please spare me the outrage...

Whether the cost is 'too much' would be a matter of opinion seer. Perhaps you don't care about such things? Big business would gladly poison you for a few more dollars, but maybe you'd gladly be poisoned so you could have a few more dollars too?

(1) of the 15 listed was about Paris. There are 14 others.

In my view, the cost to the environment of how he has implemented some of these 'business friendly' changes is too high.

[seanD]

I'm not posting in any sort of specific sense that is implied by your response above. The general attitude is one of affluence before morality or integrity. Hence the quote of Franklin, and the source of my sarcasm.

The reality is, If trump has done what he's accused of doing, we should realize we would be better off in the long run with a bad economy than with a president willing to abuse the power of the office and undermine US national security and the integrity of the election process in that way.

"But the economy is great ..." means we are right on the precipice Benjamin Franklin was talking about.

Well, to you, Trump is the devil and anything he does you'll see as the apocalypse of corruption. Most folks in here don't see it things that way, and believe what Trump did (whatever that is, since it still remains unclear depending on who's arguing what) is not that serious. And apparently, after folks got wind of the all facts from the impeachment proceedings, the poll shifts and donation surges show the majority don't believe it was that serious either.

[oxmixmudd]

Well, to you, Trump is the devil and anything he does you'll see as the apocalypse of corruption. Most folks in here don't see it things that way, and believe what Trump did (whatever that is, since it still remains unclear depending on who's arguing what) is not that serious. And apparently, after folks got wind of the all facts from the impeachment proceedings, the poll shifts and donation surges show the majority don't believe it was that serious either.

Actually, the problem here is that you dismiss any criticism of Trump as if the critic is trying to paint him as the devil. To say that he has implemented 'buisiness friendly' policies at the expense of the environment is not to paint Trump as the devil, it is to point out that simple fact. To say he has given too much leeway to buisiness at too much cost to the environment is also not 'painting trump as the devil'.

So if to you ANY criticism of Trump is 'painting him as the devil', what does that say about your own objectivity?

[seanD]

Actually, the problem here is that you dismiss any criticism of Trump as if the critic is trying to paint him as the devil. To say that he has implemented 'buisiness friendly' policies at the expense of the environment is not to paint Trump as the devil, it is to point out that simple fact. To say he has given too much leeway to buisiness at too much cost to the environment is also not 'painting trump as the devil'.

So if to you ANY criticism of Trump is 'painting him as the devil', what does that say about your own objectivity?

I was referring to the impeachment fiasco because I thought that's what you were referring to when you said "a president willing to abuse the power of the office and undermine US national security and the integrity of the election process in that way." I don't know enough about his environment polices to comment. But in to be honest, I doubt it's that serious.

[shunyadragon]

While Obama did help the economy recover after the housing crash, he did not grow the economy. It was stagnant under him and unemployment rose as well as prices.

False, unemployment dropped significantly under Obama. The facts have been cited accurately. You on the other hand have not cited any references to support your assertions.

Please refer to them specifically and accurately. From Forbes magazine.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/10/30/two-charts-show-trumps-job-gains-are-just-a-continuation-from-obamas-presidency/#31e8412a1af3

Two Charts Show Trump's Job Gains Are Just A Continuation From Obama's Presidency

© Copyright Original Source

If you have any references that support your assertion of stagnation under Obama please cite them specifically.

[firstfloor]

Dennis Muilenburg resigns.

This is what happens when bean counters make engineering decisions.

[Sparko]

False, unemployment dropped significantly under Obama. The facts have been cited accurately. You on the other hand have not cited any references to support your assertions.

Please refer to them specifically and accurately. From Forbes magazine.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/10/30/two-charts-show-trumps-job-gains-are-just-a-continuation-from-obamas-presidency/#31e8412a1af3

Two Charts Show Trump's Job Gains Are Just A Continuation From Obama's Presidency

© Copyright Original Source

If you have any references that support your assertion of stagnation under Obama please cite them specifically.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-by-not-coun/

[Teallaura]

It's good to be educated about it so folks don't get blind-sided. But this is why I pray things don't unwind before 2020. With the cast of potential democratic nominees and their insane policies, Trump must win at all cost.

Well, not all costs, but yeah, it's to the point where the choice is that really annoying guy or an out and out lunatic.

[Leonhard]

While Obama did help the economy recover after the housing crash, he did not grow the economy. It was stagnant under him and unemployment rose as well as prices.

Unemployment decreased under Obama, read my earlier posts.

Both the GDP and the Stock Index rose as well, albiet at an increase of debt to GDP ratio (this isn't new under Obama though).

[seanD]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-by-not-coun/

The BLS is using the same U3 unemployment number today. Obama didn't invent the U3 unemployment number.

[demi-conservative]

Obama's administration played games with the unemployment numbers by ignoring people who were out of work and had given up finding a new job.

It's standard government BS, not started by Obama. U3 figures are useless.

Unemployment decreased under Obama, read my earlier posts.

Both the GDP and the Stock Index rose as well

To repeat myself, GDP and Stock Index are useless.

[Leonhard]

To repeat myself, GDP and Stock Index are useless.

Except you used a horrible argument against them, where you expected a loan to be paid back within a single year. You do realize that its quite possible for the US to keep borrowing money until the Second Coming, as long as they don't raise the debt to gdp ratio.

Except of course Reagan did that, and every Republican and Democrat since that have been doing that. Trump included.

This can't go on forever, but simply not having a full return on a first year, is not an indication of a bad economy.

[seanD]

It's standard government BS, not started by Obama. U3 figures are useless.

All unemployment measurements -- U3, U5, U6 -- were on a downward trajectory starting in 2010. In fact, there is very little distinction, as the decline has been steady between both admins. So the argument about Obama vs. Trump in regard to employment is pretty retarded. BLS is going to continue to use the U3 number because it looks less bearish to an economic recovery. The real argument should be the quality of jobs, and this argument is as relevant under Trump as it was under Obama.