state of the union speech

I think Trump hit it out of the park tonight. He spoke very well and I don't recall him stuttering or jumping words. What did you make of it?

Comments (171)

Jan 31, 2018

I thought Trump using real people was a good touch, tapped into the real people of America and appealed to the average Joe. Thought the North Korean defector was the one of the most moving things I've seen, when he held the crutches up he was one proud man and he deserved it. I thought Ted Cruz in particular looked very happy throughout which was interesting. Bernie looked low energy however he was probably the more responsive dems.

Trump is getting reelected given how the Dems carried on and if they continue to take the Hillary path of the "We aren't Trump". Seriously though those African American Dems staying cold still when Trump said African American unemployment is the lowest in all time will be something that will be that will tarnish the Dems. Trump is getting results, people are aware of the benefits of tax cuts are and not to mention all the manufacturers coming back to the United States. Good times ahead for the US. I'm not a American but I felt a lot of prosperity about America from that speech. Looking forward to another hopefully 7 years of a Trump presidency

RIP LEHMAN
RIP MONACOMONKEY
RIP THEACCOUNTING MAJOR

    • 7
    • 3
Jan 31, 2018

I agree with your second point. I am a Democrat and the party's stubborn nobility will be the party's downfall. The Democratic party would rather fall on their sword than win an election. I think back to the whole unisex bathroom debate - it did more damage than good.

    • 2
Best Response
Jan 31, 2018

Crushed it. Absolutely powerful. If Dems don't compromise on immigration, they are idiots.

All the clapping was annoying, but it's always like that. I thought the content was great. He stayed on script and his topics were largely dem in nature. I was shocked at the prison reform mention.

Trump got double the black vote that Romney, McCain or bush got. He got more or equal the Hispanic vote as well (even while being painted as hating Mexicans). Democrats should wake up, forget this Russia shit, and realize there is a President who only cares about passing laws and getting shit done. He was elected because people are pissed at politicians and want change, not because anyone wants him to hardline Republican issues.

MAGA

Jan 31, 2018

"Doers gonna do, and ainters gonna aint"

Trump can be considered a Doer and the Democratic Party is missing the whole point of why he was elected in the first place. A day late and a buck short, they need to catch up. Whoever's been helping with the strategic advising of that party - they need to be fired ASAP.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Didn't watch it and don't care about these speeches, but did Joe Kennedy III really give the Dem response? Son of Joe Kennedy II, the rabid Chavista propagandist? I'm genuinely concerned that the far left has wrested control over the UK Labour Party and the American dems. This does not end well for the West when the conservatives inevitably lose power.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 31, 2018

He was drooling.

And apparently celebrating common Americans and offering a path to citizenship for 1.8MM people makes trump a bully. What a joke.

Jan 31, 2018

Do you live in the US?

This could be some of the most shallow economic analysis I have ever read.

Jan 31, 2018

You are about as "on point" as all of the pundits and analysis done on Trump thus far. Sounds about right. Keep on dreaming.

Jan 31, 2018

Your whole post is hyperbolic. Corporate tax rates should be zero. The fact you discount a tax cut as somehow bad is rediculous.

And obama did nothing but layer regulation which cost time, money and make the US uncompetitive. So yes, unwinding 8 years of regulations is an accomplishment.

Keep crying in your milk. Trumps speech was inclusive, effectively three quarters democrat issues and is getting high marks from everyone but rabid anti Trumpers.

Jan 31, 2018

"Your whole post is hyperbolic. Corporate tax rates should be zero. The fact you discount a tax cut as somehow bad is rediculous."

Corporate tax rates should be zero, eh? Talk about hyperbolic. Tax cuts can be utilized as a tool. If taxes are cut, where else is the government funding going to come from? Sounds like you should research a bit more into macroeconomics...let alone a bit of research into tax as well

"And obama did nothing but layer regulation which cost time, money and make the US uncompetitive. So yes, unwinding 8 years of regulations is an accomplishment."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Republicans during the Obama administration did nothing but sit with their arms folded and cry about the proposed policies without actually coming to any terms or agreement?

I am guessing the majority of people on this board are into "investment banking" and are familiar with what ad-hoc reporting is. It surprises me how one dimensional people analyze politics. You have to have a multi-dimensional perspective, not one-dimensional, in order to see the big picture.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 31, 2018

Corporations collect taxes from consumers through higher prices, lower wages or less people employed.

People pay taxes.

Pretty easy idea to understand. Hence the perpetual argument about the double taxation of dividends. Corporations are not people in the sense they do not earn money for themselves, but for their shareholders.

Lol at the muddled financials, insult. As if accountants are wise oracles of financial health.

Jan 31, 2018
Neutrino_CFO:

Corporate tax rates should be zero, eh? Talk about hyperbolic. Tax cuts can be utilized as a tool. If taxes are cut, where else is the government funding going to come from?

Uh, I don't know. From the tax on dividends from the distribution of corporate earnings? The capital gains tax on sold stock? Income tax generated from new capital investment? Un-taxed corporate earnings don't just go under the mattress.

Jan 31, 2018

Or income tax, sales tax, etc.

Without corporate taxes, prices would go down, investments would do up, dividends would increase, etc. all tax incurring events.

It's easier having companies collect taxes though. They just raise the price of something and no one is the wiser.

Jan 31, 2018

LMAO so the Trump tax cuts are going to be funded with....more TAXES.

Too funny. You do realize actual production and output isn't actually being created. There is no additional wealth/GDP being created. It's just a shift of jobs being moved onshore.

Particularly in oil and gas...a dying and for the most part obsolete industry. Then Trump had to place high tariffs on solar panels because they're all being made in CHINA while us Americans are still dependent and stuck on primitive fossil fuels.

The only problem here are the dumb Americans who are stuck in the past and cannot move forward. Americans are not competitive enough on the global market because we have been too busy with our heads stuck up our asses. The hubris of past generations is catching up, and Trump is here merely as a "last hoorah" so the older generation that lost their jobs during the downturn (because of their own inability to compete on a global market) can give one last final "f*** you" to the world and finally rest in peace.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018
Neutrino_CFO:

LMAO so the Trump tax cuts are going to be funded with....more TAXES.

Too funny. You do realize actual production and output isn't actually being created. There is no additional wealth/GDP being created. It's just a shift of jobs being moved onshore.

The tax cuts were enacted 4 1/2 weeks ago and we have no relative economic data since then. None of us can make definitive statements about GDP, productivity, etc. for at least 6 months, if not several years.

Neutrino_CFO:

Particularly in oil and gas...a dying and for the most part obsolete industry. Then Trump had to place high tariffs on solar panels because they're all being made in CHINA while us Americans are still dependent and stuck on primitive fossil fuels.

Many conservatives would argue against tariffs in all cases. I'm generally in that category and I'm split on the solar panel tariffs, but their purpose was to combat Chinese product dumping. Chinese manufacturers over-invested in solar panels that didn't have enough demand, so they've been dumping them at below cost prices in the U.S., hurting American solar panel manufacturers. Not sure how I feel about it, but there is a method to the madness.

Neutrino_CFO:

The only problem here are the dumb Americans who are stuck in the past and cannot move forward. Americans are not competitive enough on the global market because we have been too busy with our heads stuck up our asses. The hubris of past generations is catching up, and Trump is here merely as a "last hoorah" so the older generation that lost their jobs during the downturn (because of their own inability to compete on a global market) can give one last final "f*** you" to the world and finally rest in peace.

This is the problem with Obama's new Democrats. Where the Democrats used to be champions of the blue collar middle class, Democrats now scorn them, and even look forward to their death (as it appears you are here). It's one thing for Dems to think that, but it's scary that you're actually hearing this out loud from the new left.

Jan 31, 2018

America first doesn't mean isolation, it means we put our own needs ahead of those of people in other countires. You seem to think that Nationalism, which roughly translates to pride in ones nation, is the exact opposite of globalism. This is not the case.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Do you have any idea what percentage of products that exist today that use petroleum products? The best estimate that I have seen is somewhere around 80% of all products use a petroleum product somewhere in its direct manufacturing chain. That doesn't even include transportation. You are talking about things with definitive authority that you seem to know little about.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018
Neutrino_CFO:

**Particularly in oil and gas...a dying and for the most part obsolete industry. **Then Trump had to place high tariffs on solar panels because they're all being made in CHINA while us Americans are still dependent and stuck on primitive fossil fuels.

LOL

Take a lap champ, it's incredibly obvious that your grasp on economics is lacking but your grasp on energy sounds like you weave baskets and sing kumbaya all day. O&G ain't going away, sorry to burst your bubble.

Jan 31, 2018

Yea that's why Houston was drying up and tenant vacancies were rattling not only the oil and gas industry, but the real estate there as well.

Yes I am on the CFO track and rest assured, my background is also in AUDIT. It may not be obvious to the banker types, but the devil is in fact in the details.

While your focus is one dimensional and on your own bottom line, guess who is analyzing trends and overseeing the complete financial story as a whole?

Again, your perspectives are great if your short-sighted intention is to put more money in your pockets NOW. However, you want long-term sustainability and growth? Then maybe you should reconsider your elementary economic perspectives.

    • 4
Jan 31, 2018
Neutrino_CFO:

Particularly in oil and gas...a dying and for the most part obsolete industry.

Did you even go to college? This can't be a serious assertion. Did you know that all plastics are derived from refined natural gas/crude oil? The vast majority of polyester clothing is made from polyethylene terephthalate, or PET, a plastic derived from crude oil. How about the packaging of almost all consumer goods?

https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/ https://www.iea.org/topics/naturalgas/
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page...

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

@InVinoVeritas

Come on man, you really can't be this ignorant. Don't you know the majority of the oil and gas industry is for the production of energy? The US has oil reserves all in stock and what will happen once we switch to an alternative clean energy source as our primary source of energy?

All those reserves and wells become worthless, thousands of jobs will have to retrain or face unemployment. Houston would be another Detroit.

Again, oil and gas is becoming obsolete. Literally every scientific as well as finance/accounting publication will report the same.

I am guessing you are clueless on the whole climate change conversation as well aren't you?

    • 2
Jan 31, 2018

Do you think we can generate all of America's power needs needs through alternative energy? How about global energy needs? Less than 20% of the world's energy consumption is sourced through alternative energy. See below.

https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2014...
Also - in a perfect world clean energy sources would meet total global energy needs and greatly lower worldwide pollution. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near this vision. The world still runs off of fossil fuels, and this isn't drastically changing anytime soon...

Jan 31, 2018

Your assumption is that the world's largest industry is just going to go away overnight. That's a bad assumption. It will take decades to switch to cars that are powered by something other than internal combustion engines run by gasoline. And I only mean in the US.

China is just now starting to hit the steep part of the development curve and India is probably a decade behind. China is skipping some steps but India and different countries in Africa won't have that luxury. They'll have to use fossil fuels to develop because they're cheap, much like how the US did but on a far greater scale. They're not just going to make a bunch of electric cars because they're way too expensive and there aren't enough rare earth metals to make that many batteries fast enough.

On power gen, natural gas is cheap, burns clean, and it doesn't cost nearly as much to build a plant vs. a nuclear plant and its power density is far greater than that of PVs/wind. Until offshore wind/massive solar farms becomes a reliable means of generating power (also assuming we find a way to store more than enough power to get through the night/cloudy days/storms/no wind days/etc), then natural gas will likely decline. I got news for you, that isn't happening any time soon. As an aside, I'm a huge proponent of nuclear power but building a nuclear plant is expensive and people who know nothing about them think it'll make fish have three eyes. They're wrong, but no in Congress is going to try and get one built so it's moot for now.

Lastly, you're assuming that O&G will be obsolete as opposed to used in different ways. I'll side with the former NASA materials scientists and the literal millions of engineers that work in O&G and trust that they can pivot and find different uses for O&G.

Jan 31, 2018
Greg Marmalard:

Your assumption is that the world's largest industry is just going to go away overnight. That's a bad assumption.

This has never been my assumption. What I said was where will the government funding come from after all the tax cuts? Then I said all the prices will go up. Then I mentioned oil and gas was dying (yea there was and is a lot of confusion about the future of the industry) so Trump had to put a hamper on the progress of alternative fuel and bring strength back to oil and gas. It was a desperate move because the industry was flatlining...at the end of the day it's just another instance of being TOO BIG TO FAIL.

FFS...in his SOTU speech he referred to it as "Beautiful clean coal"...

Crony capitalism is what it is. What a joke!

Jan 31, 2018

So O&G is dying (but oil prices are going up) but it's not going to die soon? I'm sorry, I'm having trouble following your logic.

If O&G is dying (it's not) slowly then it would make sense that oil companies would/will pivot and create/transition to another industry. If O&G is dying quickly, then you could have some sort of massive effect on Houston (kinda like 2015/2016), but that's just not going to happen because O&G isn't a US-centric industry and increased drilling will actually keep oil prices down both by bbl and at the pump, so you should really be thanking Trump for that since it will save you money.

I'm done with this conversation as it's obvious that we're approaching this in entirely different ways, however my last comment is that I would recommend you reexamine this with a global perspective. It appears as though you think O&G is US only, the US makes up ~10% of global production, it's not going away in the US and will only accelerate in other parts of the world.

Feb 2, 2018

I always thought polyester was recycled plastic bottles

Jan 31, 2018
TommyGunn:

I always thought polyester was recycled plastic bottles

They are made from the same base material.

Jan 31, 2018

I tend to agree with you on most things, but no way should corporations be taxed nothing while they continue to enjoy the legal benefits of being considered a "person" (lobbying, political donations, specific legal protections, corporate veil, etc.). If that was no longer the case then I'd at least be open to hearing about the idea, but until then they need to be taxed.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018
Pmc2ghy:

I tend to agree with you on most things, but no way should corporations be taxed nothing while they continue to enjoy the legal benefits of being considered a "person" (lobbying, political donations, specific legal protections, corporate veil, etc.). If that was no longer the case then I'd at least be open to hearing about the idea, but until then they need to be taxed.

If that's the case, then remove the double taxation where distributions are taxed as ordinary income. The problem with the corporate income tax existing at all is that it just amounts to double taxation.

Jan 31, 2018

It would be on point if rainbows really had pots of gold at the end. Tax cuts are not just "temporary injections" for someone who claims to be a CFO you don't seem to understand how any financial analysis or projections are done.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 31, 2018
Neutrino_CFO:

If you think the tax cuts are going to help anything, think again. There are only two things certain in life...death and taxes.

What this means is that the financial burden is just shifted somewhere else. Though taxes may be cut, prices will likely go up elsewhere. If they cut taxes, but the price of oil goes up, does that actually make anyone richer? Nope, just the oil companies.

Paradoxically, corporate income tax rate cuts are counter-inflationary. They incentivize companies to invest in products and services, thus increasing the supply of those products and services, reducing prices relative to their baseline increase. That's a separate topic from the idea that the economy is doing well thus creating inflationary pressures. It's true that you can have corporate income tax rate cuts and increased consumer demand at the same time, although they are not necessarily related (causal); but the corporate tax rate cut, which accounts for most of the tax cut, is designed to be counter-inflationary.

Jan 31, 2018

"Paradoxically, corporate income tax rate cuts are counter-inflationary."

Perhaps in a vacuum. However, TCJA lowers tax rates for corporations and individuals. More spending at both levels. Consumer and industrial goods demand goes up. Prices will go up.

More discretionary income will also lead to more demand for housing. Higher demand = higher rates and rents.

And really, with the recent Trump tax cuts, where is the government funding going to come from to make up the difference in lost revenue?

By the end of 8 years, Trump will leave this country and office in a shit storm. Similar to what Bush did for the next administration to clean up everything that was swept under the rug.

Jan 31, 2018
Neutrino_CFO:

"Paradoxically, corporate income tax rate cuts are counter-inflationary."

Perhaps in a vacuum. However, TCJA lowers tax rates for corporations and individuals. More spending at both levels. Consumer and industrial goods demand goes up. Prices will go up.

It's good that we have a Dem finally admit that the tax cut is a CUT for individuals, unlike the media and other Dems, which made it sound like a middle class tax increase. However, the lion's share of the tax cut is in the corporate realm.

Neutrino_CFO:

More discretionary income will also lead to more demand for housing. Higher demand = higher rates and rents.

True, maybe in a vacuum. But lower corporate and income tax rates could lead to more investment in (supply of) housing, too. Also, this particular tax cut actually took the first swipe in decades at the mortgage interest deduction, reducing the benefit to higher income people, which could be a downward pressure on prices (again, by itself).

Neutrino_CFO:

And really, with the recent Trump tax cuts, where is the government funding going to come from to make up the difference in lost revenue?

As I've argued in other threads, what's important is not absolute debt, but relative debt. So long as the national debt falls in relation to the size of GDP as a result of the tax cuts, then we are better off fiscally. If that doesn't happen then I'll agree that this was a bad fiscal move.

Neutrino_CFO:

By the end of 8 years, Trump will leave this country and office in a shit storm. Similar to what Bush did for the next administration to clean up everything that was swept under the rug.

Maybe, time will tell.

Jan 31, 2018

Didn't watch the speech, I don't watch any speeches. Pointless political pandering is pointless political pandering no matter who is in office. I will say that Trump's approval rating is currently at around 39%, based on that it doesn't seem like he is getting 8 years to "leave this country and office in a shit storm".

Jan 31, 2018
BobTheBaker:

Didn't watch the speech, I don't watch any speeches. Pointless political pandering is pointless political pandering no matter who is in office. I will say that Trump's approval rating is currently at around 39%, based on that it doesn't seem like he is getting 8 years to "leave this country and office in a shit storm".

This would be true if elections operated in a vacuum (that term is being used a lot in this thread!). If the Dems had run literally any other candidate than Hillary Clinton in 2016 they probably would have won. The Dems are gearing up hard left, deep blue state candidates for the 2020 Dem nomination. I would not put it past the Dems to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.

Jan 31, 2018

Fair statement. I guess we'll see how it plays out. 2020 is a long time from now.

Jan 31, 2018

National opinion polls are worthless. He was at 45% recently. Endless negative news, coupled with Hollywood babies pissing and moaning mean supporters just tune out.

What's his support in FL, OH, Michigan. I could care less what California and NYC think. Electoral math is pretty simple.

And if Dems think they are going to win on a policy of far left lunacy, good luck. Moderates win and trumps policies are moderate.

Jan 31, 2018

State level polls are extremely unreliable, I will say that Trump's win which flew in the face of national polls is basically unprecedented. Literally 80,000 votes in three states won him the presidency. I wouldn't count on him doing the unprecedented again if his approval ratings stay at roughly 40%, I am using 538's composite of polls not just one poll btw, so he may have been at 45% recently in one poll but 538's composite has him at or below 40% since May. In any case, 2020 is a long time from now. Let's get through mid-terms and reevaluate.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Well considering the Democrats have no real bench to draw from, they can do one of three things, run a celeberity, run one of those nut jobs they keep promoting or run Hillary again. My money is on the later as the party has tried everything to get her out but she stubonly refuses to leave.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Cmon man, there is no fuckin way they run HRC again. More likely that Jamie Dimon runs than HRC. Anyway 2020 is a long time away, let's just pray Liz Warren or Bernie don't become president. I highly dislike Trump but still prefer him to those two.

    • 3
Jan 31, 2018

Nope, of the big names in the Democrat party I am putting the percentage that it is HRC at 80%. The party sacrificed Harvey Wienstien to try and get rid of her but even that didn't work.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Jan 31, 2018

The smart call would be to run Tulsi Gabbard. My bet is that they double down on identity politics and run Cory Booker.

Feb 1, 2018

I know the 2016 election was an anomaly in many ways, but I think it also showed that both parties want to start to push politicians that the public is familiar with. In most of these instances it is Senators that have that "starpower" that each party wants to push. Im talking about people like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, etc. Personally I think this mentality from the parties is going to make it where it becomes difficult for Governors and House members to run as they will be behind in the primaries than the Senators who have been building their public image for a few years.

Jan 31, 2018
Neutrino_CFO:

And really, with the recent Trump tax cuts, where is the government funding going to come from to make up the difference in lost revenue?

By the end of 8 years, Trump will leave this country and office in a shit storm. Similar to what Bush did for the next administration to clean up everything that was swept under the rug.

Barack Obama added approximately $7.92 trillion to the total US Federal debt, a 68 percent increase from the $11.66 trillion in total debt at the end of George W. Bush's last budget, FY 2009.

By the way, George W. Bush was a terrible President. However, Obama was awful for this country from so many perspectives.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018
InVinoVeritas:

Barack Obama added approximately $7.92 trillion to the total US Federal debt, a 68 percent increase from the $11.66 trillion in total debt at the end of George W. Bush's last budget, FY 2009.

By the way, George W. Bush was a terrible President. However, Obama was awful for this country from so many perspectives.

This is terribly deceptive and misleading. Most of the debt added by Obama came at the hand of the Bush tax cuts. There was also a lot of lost in tax receipts because of the severe recession. A lot of policies that had a negative impact on the deficit and the current account, were those that came from previous administrations. Obama actually slowed down the rate of increase in the national debt through raising taxes on top earners.

Also, people on this thread saying that 0 corporate tax is great and that cutting taxes lead to all of this end of the rainbow fortune, you're making miles of leaps and bounds. There's no direct relation to any specific economic component that is positive with cutting taxes. There's a supply side theory that makes the argument that all of these tertiary effects will take place, but obviously that's not fact unless there is actual data later on backing up the story.

The direct effect tax cuts have on the economy is immediately an increase in the deficit. Why? Because less revenue means lower amount falling to the bottom of the P&L. So, all of this praise or critique of the tax plan as to how it is impacting the economy is silly. Markets are doing great because budgets look a lot better, but that is not an indicator to the long-term effects of this policy.

On the note from @TNA about people paying taxes, this is a fair argument, but I'd like to learn of the examples where a system like the one you're suggesting has been shown to work well. My contention would be that it's next to impossible to insure future revenue on the working class when the owners control the means to production. And all of the services that corporations benefit from, should they not pay for them?

    • 7
    • 3
Jan 31, 2018

Are you familiar with Obamacare? Obama did nothing to cut Federal expenses. He essentially flat-lined W's inflated spending budget and did nothing to cut costs.

There is only one solution in this country, and that is to cut the massive entitlement and welfare programs that are destroying the middle class. Democrats falsely believe we can achieve some sort of utopia in a heterogeneous population of roughly 325 million people. We can't, and if we continue to believe we can, the US drown in its own debt.

    • 2
Jan 31, 2018
InVinoVeritas:

Are you familiar with Obamacare? Obama did nothing to cut Federal expenses. He essentially flat-lined W's inflated spending budget and did nothing to cut costs.
There is only one solution in this country, and that is to cut the massive entitlement and welfare programs that are destroying the middle class. Democrats falsely believe we can achieve some sort of utopia in a heterogeneous population of roughly 325 million people. We can't, and if we continue to believe we can, the US drown in its own debt.

Well, on the utopian note, I realized that it's more a factor of inefficiency in the wealth distribution. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett's old asses are sitting on nearly a combined $150-200B in personal net worth, and now the plan is to give it away to Africa. I'm all for the personal altruism, but it's the stupidest fucking plan ever. Poverty and disease is still ridden in those countries; corruption is still rampant; and militants still terrorize the people.

But, if you gave me $10MM, I would instantly put it to work, because my family is poor and I would want to protect my future, while also saying fuck you to the corporate offices. Inefficiency and vacuums left by distortions from markets or policies is driving some negative decay in the world.

    • 3
Jan 31, 2018

A bloated Federal government that picks winners/losers and privatizes gains/socializes losses isn't the solution. We need less bureaucracy at all levels. Government is far less efficient at allocating capital than individuals.

Jan 31, 2018
InVinoVeritas:

A bloated Federal government that picks winners/losers and privatizes gains/socializes losses isn't the solution. We need less bureaucracy at all levels. Government is far less efficient at allocating capital than individuals.

I'm not arguing for more Federal government. But I wouldn't mind going into a "social" business, with a marketing strategy aimed at Bill and Melinda. Those poor people could be rich one day and Bill and Melinda don't care, they just want to give it away.

    • 1
Feb 1, 2018

Look at this fox news puppet. The only way to fix the economy is cut programs that help poor people and give it to rich people. HAHAHA HAHAHA

What's the best thing that can happen to a person who makes 1 million+ a year? He makes 2 million a year?

    • 2
Jan 31, 2018

The middle class bears the brunt of propping up a growing welfare class that is disincentivized by the government to work. The middle class pays taxes on income, not long-term capital gains. Welfare programs effectively take money from the middle class and give it to the lower class, where most of it winds up being spent by Federally subsidized companies like Walmart, 7-Eleven, and dollar stores. These profits wind up in the hands of the few.

Jan 31, 2018
iBankedUp:
InVinoVeritas:

Barack Obama added approximately $7.92 trillion to the total US Federal debt, a 68 percent increase from the $11.66 trillion in total debt at the end of George W. Bush's last budget, FY 2009.

By the way, George W. Bush was a terrible President. However, Obama was awful for this country from so many perspectives.

This is terribly deceptive and misleading. Most of the debt added by Obama came at the hand of the Bush tax cuts.

LOL where do people come up with this shit? Dude, google something before you post it. Bush's tax cuts happened in 2001 and they resulted in increased tax revenue. I stopped reading after this.. How did that lead to Obama's unprecedented deficits?!? He also increased taxes in the first term and the deficits only increased..

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 31, 2018
Esuric:
iBankedUp:
InVinoVeritas:

Barack Obama added approximately $7.92 trillion to the total US Federal debt, a 68 percent increase from the $11.66 trillion in total debt at the end of George W. Bush's last budget, FY 2009.

By the way, George W. Bush was a terrible President. However, Obama was awful for this country from so many perspectives.

This is terribly deceptive and misleading. Most of the debt added by Obama came at the hand of the Bush tax cuts.

LOL where do people come up with this shit? Dude, google something before you post it. Bush's tax cuts happened in 2001 and they resulted in increased tax revenue. I stopped reading after this.. How did that lead to Obama's unprecedented deficits?!? He also increased taxes in the first term and the deficits only increased..

Look dude. Bush tax cuts didn't end until 2010, as was written. They were later extended by congress that year.

Supply side is about tightening up and I'm looking at Trump as partially aiming to do that, or I hope he will. The only way supply side works is if the demand side gets pumped up.

You need to more directly enrich the lives of everyday people and households. Maybe the deregulation process Trump says he's most proud of will become a huge help. Maybe also getting some things done like fixing immigration will help.

But, the fact is, deficits increased throughout the Bush tax cuts, no matter who was in office. But the argument that Obama's bad policies singlehandedly exploded our deficit is just not factually true.

    • 3
Jan 31, 2018

double post

    • 2
Jan 31, 2018
iBankedUp:
Esuric:
iBankedUp:
InVinoVeritas:

Barack Obama added approximately $7.92 trillion to the total US Federal debt, a 68 percent increase from the $11.66 trillion in total debt at the end of George W. Bush's last budget, FY 2009.

By the way, George W. Bush was a terrible President. However, Obama was awful for this country from so many perspectives.

This is terribly deceptive and misleading. Most of the debt added by Obama came at the hand of the Bush tax cuts.

LOL where do people come up with this shit? Dude, google something before you post it. Bush's tax cuts happened in 2001 and they resulted in increased tax revenue. I stopped reading after this.. How did that lead to Obama's unprecedented deficits?!? He also increased taxes in the first term and the deficits only increased..

Look dude. Bush tax cuts didn't end until 2010, as was written. They were later extended by congress that year.

Supply side is about tightening up and I'm looking at Trump as partially aiming to do that, or I hope he will. The only way supply side works is if the demand side gets pumped up.

You need to more directly enrich the lives of everyday people and households. Maybe the deregulation process Trump says he's most proud of will become a huge help. Maybe also getting some things done like fixing immigration will help.

But, the fact is, deficits increased throughout the Bush tax cuts, no matter who was in office. But the argument that Obama's bad policies singlehandedly exploded our deficit is just not factually true.

I'm going to try one more time with you: tax revenue increased after the Bush tax cuts. Deficits increased because of spending related to the war on terror, not because of tax policy. You cannot credit a tax law, passed in 2001, and which increased tax revenue, for deficits in 2009. Seriously, how dense are you?

    • 2
Jan 31, 2018
Esuric:
iBankedUp:
Esuric:
iBankedUp:
InVinoVeritas:

Barack Obama added approximately $7.92 trillion to the total US Federal debt, a 68 percent increase from the $11.66 trillion in total debt at the end of George W. Bush's last budget, FY 2009.

By the way, George W. Bush was a terrible President. However, Obama was awful for this country from so many perspectives.

This is terribly deceptive and misleading. Most of the debt added by Obama came at the hand of the Bush tax cuts.

LOL where do people come up with this shit? Dude, google something before you post it. Bush's tax cuts happened in 2001 and they resulted in increased tax revenue. I stopped reading after this.. How did that lead to Obama's unprecedented deficits?!? He also increased taxes in the first term and the deficits only increased..

Look dude. Bush tax cuts didn't end until 2010, as was written. They were later extended by congress that year.

Supply side is about tightening up and I'm looking at Trump as partially aiming to do that, or I hope he will. The only way supply side works is if the demand side gets pumped up.

You need to more directly enrich the lives of everyday people and households. Maybe the deregulation process Trump says he's most proud of will become a huge help. Maybe also getting some things done like fixing immigration will help.

But, the fact is, deficits increased throughout the Bush tax cuts, no matter who was in office. But the argument that Obama's bad policies singlehandedly exploded our deficit is just not factually true.

I'm going to try one more time with you: tax revenue increased after the Bush tax cuts. Deficits increased because of spending related to the war on terror, not because of tax policy. You cannot credit a tax law, passed in 2001, and which increased tax revenue, for deficits in 2009. Seriously, how dense are you?

I always make the point about Trump's tax cuts that doing it now is more appropriate than later, as we know the economy will hit a road bump at some point. In the Bush case, you could project revenues to be higher in the case of higher rates without the cuts in the year 2009. Pointing out that there's a gap that is created from the difference under the policy to without it. Not to undermine the significance of the world economic collapse, that was persistent from 2007 to 2011.

    • 3
Jan 31, 2018
iBankedUp:
Esuric:
iBankedUp:
Esuric:
iBankedUp:
InVinoVeritas:

Barack Obama added approximately $7.92 trillion to the total US Federal debt, a 68 percent increase from the $11.66 trillion in total debt at the end of George W. Bush's last budget, FY 2009.

By the way, George W. Bush was a terrible President. However, Obama was awful for this country from so many perspectives.

This is terribly deceptive and misleading. Most of the debt added by Obama came at the hand of the Bush tax cuts.

LOL where do people come up with this shit? Dude, google something before you post it. Bush's tax cuts happened in 2001 and they resulted in increased tax revenue. I stopped reading after this.. How did that lead to Obama's unprecedented deficits?!? He also increased taxes in the first term and the deficits only increased..

Look dude. Bush tax cuts didn't end until 2010, as was written. They were later extended by congress that year.

Supply side is about tightening up and I'm looking at Trump as partially aiming to do that, or I hope he will. The only way supply side works is if the demand side gets pumped up.

You need to more directly enrich the lives of everyday people and households. Maybe the deregulation process Trump says he's most proud of will become a huge help. Maybe also getting some things done like fixing immigration will help.

But, the fact is, deficits increased throughout the Bush tax cuts, no matter who was in office. But the argument that Obama's bad policies singlehandedly exploded our deficit is just not factually true.

I'm going to try one more time with you: tax revenue increased after the Bush tax cuts. Deficits increased because of spending related to the war on terror, not because of tax policy. You cannot credit a tax law, passed in 2001, and which increased tax revenue, for deficits in 2009. Seriously, how dense are you?

I always make the point about Trump's tax cuts that doing it now is more appropriate than later, as we know the economy will hit a road bump at some point. In the Bush case, you could project revenues to be higher in the case of higher rates without the cuts in the year 2009. Pointing out that there's a gap that is created from the difference under the policy to without it. Not to undermine the significance of the world economic collapse, that was persistent from 2007 to 2011.

No you can't "project revenues to be higher in the case of higher rates without tax cuts" because, for the third time, the tax cuts increased revenue. Tax rate reductions at the federal level always increase revenue. This is true for the Kennedy cuts, the Reagan cuts, the Bush cuts, Clinton cuts, etc. You're blaming 2001 cuts, which increased revenue, on deficits 9 years later. I can't believe I have to explain this three times. Holy shit.

    • 4
Jan 31, 2018
Esuric:

No you can't "project revenues to be higher in the case of higher rates without tax cuts" because, for the third time, the tax cuts increased revenue. Tax rate reductions at the federal level always increase revenue. This is true for the Kennedy cuts, the Reagan cuts, the Bush cuts, Clinton cuts, etc. You're blaming 2001 cuts, which increased revenue, on deficits 9 years later. I can't believe I have to explain this three times. Holy shit.

Who gave you this idea that Reaganomics didn't increase the deficit? If you're just going to make up shit, then I think you can sit in an empty room in the corner and just talk to yourself for the rest of your life, because you're out of your mind.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 31, 2018
iBankedUp:
Esuric:

No you can't "project revenues to be higher in the case of higher rates without tax cuts" because, for the third time, the tax cuts increased revenue. Tax rate reductions at the federal level always increase revenue. This is true for the Kennedy cuts, the Reagan cuts, the Bush cuts, Clinton cuts, etc. You're blaming 2001 cuts, which increased revenue, on deficits 9 years later. I can't believe I have to explain this three times. Holy shit.

Who gave you this idea that Reaganomics didn't increase the deficit? If you're just going to make up shit, then I think you can sit in an empty room in the corner and just talk to yourself for the rest of your life, because you're out of your mind.

Tax revenue by year

FY 1990 - $1.03 trillion.
FY 1989 - $991 billion.
FY 1988 - $909 billion.
FY 1987 - $854 billion.
FY 1986 - $769 billion. (tax cuts 50% to 28% top rate)
FY 1985 - $734 billion.
FY 1984 - $666 billion.
FY 1983 - $601 billion.
FY 1982 - $618 billion.
FY 1981 - $599 billion. (tax cuts 70% to 50% top rate)
FY 1980 - $517 billion.

Dude, it's amazing how little you know and how easy it is to refute you. Here's another data point:

FY 1967 - $149 billion.
FY 1966 - $131 billion.
FY 1965 - $117 billion. (tax cut 91% to 65% top rates)
FY 1964 - $113 billion.
FY 1963 - $107 billion.

    • 3
Jan 31, 2018
Esuric:
iBankedUp:
Esuric:

No you can't "project revenues to be higher in the case of higher rates without tax cuts" because, for the third time, the tax cuts increased revenue. Tax rate reductions at the federal level always increase revenue. This is true for the Kennedy cuts, the Reagan cuts, the Bush cuts, Clinton cuts, etc. You're blaming 2001 cuts, which increased revenue, on deficits 9 years later. I can't believe I have to explain this three times. Holy shit.

Who gave you this idea that Reaganomics didn't increase the deficit? If you're just going to make up shit, then I think you can sit in an empty room in the corner and just talk to yourself for the rest of your life, because you're out of your mind.

Tax revenue by year

FY 1990 - $1.03 trillion.
FY 1989 - $991 billion.
FY 1988 - $909 billion.
FY 1987 - $854 billion.
FY 1986 - $769 billion. (tax cuts 50% to 28% top rate)
FY 1985 - $734 billion.
FY 1984 - $666 billion.
FY 1983 - $601 billion.
FY 1982 - $618 billion.
FY 1981 - $599 billion. (tax cuts 70% to 50% top rate)
FY 1980 - $517 billion.

Dude, it's amazing how little you know and how easy it is to refute you. Here's another data point:

FY 1967 - $149 billion.
FY 1966 - $131 billion.
FY 1965 - $117 billion. (tax cut 91% to 65% top rates)
FY 1964 - $113 billion.
FY 1963 - $107 billion.

Right. But I think if you account for growth, such as by showing spending as % of GDP, you'll see that spending was high during the Reagan administration, which could mean that GDP did not outpace spending, and revenues didn't grow fast enough. Either way, the deficit was just higher during Reagan than it was in the previous administration. His economics actually look more like Obama's in that they had high spending as a share of Gdp and a recession to deal with.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 31, 2018
iBankedUp:
Esuric:
iBankedUp:
Esuric:

No you can't "project revenues to be higher in the case of higher rates without tax cuts" because, for the third time, the tax cuts increased revenue. Tax rate reductions at the federal level always increase revenue. This is true for the Kennedy cuts, the Reagan cuts, the Bush cuts, Clinton cuts, etc. You're blaming 2001 cuts, which increased revenue, on deficits 9 years later. I can't believe I have to explain this three times. Holy shit.

Who gave you this idea that Reaganomics didn't increase the deficit? If you're just going to make up shit, then I think you can sit in an empty room in the corner and just talk to yourself for the rest of your life, because you're out of your mind.

Tax revenue by year

FY 1990 - $1.03 trillion.
FY 1989 - $991 billion.
FY 1988 - $909 billion.
FY 1987 - $854 billion.
FY 1986 - $769 billion. (tax cuts 50% to 28% top rate)
FY 1985 - $734 billion.
FY 1984 - $666 billion.
FY 1983 - $601 billion.
FY 1982 - $618 billion.
FY 1981 - $599 billion. (tax cuts 70% to 50% top rate)
FY 1980 - $517 billion.

Dude, it's amazing how little you know and how easy it is to refute you. Here's another data point:

FY 1967 - $149 billion.
FY 1966 - $131 billion.
FY 1965 - $117 billion. (tax cut 91% to 65% top rates)
FY 1964 - $113 billion.
FY 1963 - $107 billion.

Right. But I think if you account for growth, such as by showing spending as % of GDP, you'll see that spending was high during the Reagan administration, which could mean that GDP did not outpace spending, and revenues didn't grow fast enough. Either way, the deficit was just higher during Reagan than it was in the previous administration. His economics actually look more like Obama's in that they had high spending as a share of Gdp and a recession to deal with.

Except Reagan decreased taxes while Obama raised taxes. Reagan's growth far outpaced Obama's. They aren't even comparable administrations. Reagan was wildly successful economically and in the foreign policy arena, both places Obama failed in (economically, despite the Federal Reserve engaging in record quantitative easing) or failed miserably in (foreign policy).

Jan 31, 2018

Yeah you're right, the 2007 crisis was far worse than the 80s economic woes.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018
iBankedUp:

Yeah you're right, the 2007 crisis was far worse than the 80s economic woes.

It actually wasn't worse than the stagflation of the 1970s/early 1980s. Reagan took over in an era of insanely high inflation and insanely high interest rates. Obama had the Federal Reserve as his personal growth bitch, engaging in record quantitative easing, while Reagan had the Federal Reserve (correctly) raising interest rates to crushing levels to control inflation. In spite of that, Reagan's policies and the Federal Reserve (together) were able to re-balance the US economy into strong growth rates. Obama, once again, proved the failure of Keynesian stimulus.

Jan 31, 2018
Troll - Aged 18 Years:
iBankedUp:

Yeah you're right, the 2007 crisis was far worse than the 80s economic woes.

It actually wasn't worse than the stagflation of the 1970s/early 1980s. Reagan took over in an era of insanely high inflation and insanely high interest rates. Obama had the Federal Reserve as his personal growth bitch, engaging in record quantitative easing, while Reagan had the Federal Reserve (correctly) raising interest rates to crushing levels to control inflation. In spite of that, Reagan's policies and the Federal Reserve (together) were able to re-balance the US economy into strong growth rates. Obama, once again, proved the failure of Keynesian stimulus.

:

In 2008 and 2009, the U.S. labor market lost 8.4 million jobs, or 6.1% of all payroll employment. This was the most dramatic employment contraction (by far) of any recession since the Great Depression. By comparison, in the deep recession that began in 1981, job loss was 3.1%, or only about half as severe.

    • 2
Jan 31, 2018
iBankedUp:
Troll - Aged 18 Years:
iBankedUp:

Yeah you're right, the 2007 crisis was far worse than the 80s economic woes.

It actually wasn't worse than the stagflation of the 1970s/early 1980s. Reagan took over in an era of insanely high inflation and insanely high interest rates. Obama had the Federal Reserve as his personal growth bitch, engaging in record quantitative easing, while Reagan had the Federal Reserve (correctly) raising interest rates to crushing levels to control inflation. In spite of that, Reagan's policies and the Federal Reserve (together) were able to re-balance the US economy into strong growth rates. Obama, once again, proved the failure of Keynesian stimulus.

:

In 2008 and 2009, the U.S. labor market lost 8.4 million jobs, or 6.1% of all payroll employment. This was the most dramatic employment contraction (by far) of any recession since the Great Depression. By comparison, in the deep recession that began in 1981, job loss was 3.1%, or only about half as severe.

How do you measure "severe"? Job losses is A measure of the severity. But look at the inflation rate. In 1980 and '81 inflation was 13.5% and 10.5%, respectively, while in 2008 and 2009 it was 3.8% and -0.4%.

In Jan 1981 the 10-year T-note was 12.57%; in 2009 it was 2.52%. Reagan was facing an economy with high inflation and high interest rates. Obama was not.

Reagan's real growth rate, in the teeth of stagflation (with negative growth, high interest rates, and high inflation) was far better than Obama's. Obama faced a severe recession in 2009 and was aided greatly by the Federal Reserve, and still failed to realize strong post-recession growth.

Reagan objectively had a better economic record than Obama and arguably a more difficult economic environment in which to realize economic growth.

Jan 31, 2018
Troll - Aged 18 Years:
iBankedUp:
Troll - Aged 18 Years:
iBankedUp:

Yeah you're right, the 2007 crisis was far worse than the 80s economic woes.

It actually wasn't worse than the stagflation of the 1970s/early 1980s. Reagan took over in an era of insanely high inflation and insanely high interest rates. Obama had the Federal Reserve as his personal growth bitch, engaging in record quantitative easing, while Reagan had the Federal Reserve (correctly) raising interest rates to crushing levels to control inflation. In spite of that, Reagan's policies and the Federal Reserve (together) were able to re-balance the US economy into strong growth rates. Obama, once again, proved the failure of Keynesian stimulus.

:

In 2008 and 2009, the U.S. labor market lost 8.4 million jobs, or 6.1% of all payroll employment. This was the most dramatic employment contraction (by far) of any recession since the Great Depression. By comparison, in the deep recession that began in 1981, job loss was 3.1%, or only about half as severe.

How do you measure "severe"? Job losses is A measure of the severity. But look at the inflation rate. In 1980 and '81 inflation was 13.5% and 10.5%, respectively, while in 2008 and 2009 it was 3.8% and -0.4%.

In Jan 1981 the 10-year T-note was 12.57%; in 2009 it was 2.52%. Reagan was facing an economy with high inflation and high interest rates. Obama was not.

Reagan's real growth rate, in the teeth of stagflation (with negative growth, high interest rates, and high inflation) was far better than Obama's. Obama faced a severe recession in 2009 and was aided greatly by the Federal Reserve, and still failed to realize strong post-recession growth.

Reagan objectively had a better economic record than Obama and arguably a more difficult economic environment in which to realize economic growth.

Inflation was bad in the 70s, no doubt. It declined to average 3.5% by the late 80s though. So, Reagan inherited a high inflationary environment in the first few years of office, but Obama had an $8T housing bubble. The world economics became so intertwined with shadow banking and complex derivatives products that the collapse took 2 years and 8 years to recover from.

We're talking about a huge revaluation in the economic system, not some high price distortions. The jobs fallout is indicative of just how bad things became. It was a complete shutdown in economic activity. Maybe people's lack in understanding of Obama, or his failure to communicate made it worse to markets to get back on their feet. But this was not some freak thing. It was the real thing.

Also, at the time, Reagan was dealing with malfunctioning markets due to misaligned policies from politicians running amok in previous administrations. Obama dealt with markets that had completely shutdown. The whole system was broken.

    • 4
Jan 31, 2018
iBankedUp:
Troll - Aged 18 Years:
iBankedUp:
Troll - Aged 18 Years:
iBankedUp:

Yeah you're right, the 2007 crisis was far worse than the 80s economic woes.

It actually wasn't worse than the stagflation of the 1970s/early 1980s. Reagan took over in an era of insanely high inflation and insanely high interest rates. Obama had the Federal Reserve as his personal growth bitch, engaging in record quantitative easing, while Reagan had the Federal Reserve (correctly) raising interest rates to crushing levels to control inflation. In spite of that, Reagan's policies and the Federal Reserve (together) were able to re-balance the US economy into strong growth rates. Obama, once again, proved the failure of Keynesian stimulus.

:

In 2008 and 2009, the U.S. labor market lost 8.4 million jobs, or 6.1% of all payroll employment. This was the most dramatic employment contraction (by far) of any recession since the Great Depression. By comparison, in the deep recession that began in 1981, job loss was 3.1%, or only about half as severe.

How do you measure "severe"? Job losses is A measure of the severity. But look at the inflation rate. In 1980 and '81 inflation was 13.5% and 10.5%, respectively, while in 2008 and 2009 it was 3.8% and -0.4%.

In Jan 1981 the 10-year T-note was 12.57%; in 2009 it was 2.52%. Reagan was facing an economy with high inflation and high interest rates. Obama was not.

Reagan's real growth rate, in the teeth of stagflation (with negative growth, high interest rates, and high inflation) was far better than Obama's. Obama faced a severe recession in 2009 and was aided greatly by the Federal Reserve, and still failed to realize strong post-recession growth.

Reagan objectively had a better economic record than Obama and arguably a more difficult economic environment in which to realize economic growth.

Inflation was bad in the 70s, no doubt. It declined to average 3.5% by the late 80s though. So, Reagan inherited a high inflationary environment in the first few years of office, but Obama had an $8T housing bubble. The world economics became so intertwined with shadow banking and complex derivatives products that the collapse took 2 years and 8 years to recover from.

We're talking about a huge revaluation in the economic system, not some high price distortions. The jobs fallout is indicative of just how bad things became. It was a complete shutdown in economic activity. Maybe people's lack in understanding of Obama, or his failure to communicate made it worse to markets to get back on their feet. But this was not some freak thing. It was the real thing.

Also, at the time, Reagan was dealing with malfunctioning markets due to misaligned policies from politicians running amok in previous administrations. Obama dealt with markets that had completely shutdown. The whole system was broken.

No, what you're saying is false. BUSH had to deal with a system that was completely shut down and was then bailed out in 2008 (when Bush was in office) via TARP. You're putting forth a myth that Obama "rescued" the US financial industry--it was rescued in 2008.

The real estate market bottomed out in 2009/2010. Presumably in the next, I don't know, 6 years economic growth would have picked back up as the stock market and real estate market boomed. That didn't happen because Obama raised tax rates and lost his mind with regulation.

Even if I accept the false premise that Obama had a worse economy to deal with than Reagan, one would expect a deep recession to result in huge post-recessionary growth. Where was this growth? Where? Where?!

Jan 31, 2018
Troll - Aged 18 Years:
iBankedUp:
Troll - Aged 18 Years:
iBankedUp:
Troll - Aged 18 Years:
iBankedUp:

Yeah you're right, the 2007 crisis was far worse than the 80s economic woes.

It actually wasn't worse than the stagflation of the 1970s/early 1980s. Reagan took over in an era of insanely high inflation and insanely high interest rates. Obama had the Federal Reserve as his personal growth bitch, engaging in record quantitative easing, while Reagan had the Federal Reserve (correctly) raising interest rates to crushing levels to control inflation. In spite of that, Reagan's policies and the Federal Reserve (together) were able to re-balance the US economy into strong growth rates. Obama, once again, proved the failure of Keynesian stimulus.

:

In 2008 and 2009, the U.S. labor market lost 8.4 million jobs, or 6.1% of all payroll employment. This was the most dramatic employment contraction (by far) of any recession since the Great Depression. By comparison, in the deep recession that began in 1981, job loss was 3.1%, or only about half as severe.

How do you measure "severe"? Job losses is A measure of the severity. But look at the inflation rate. In 1980 and '81 inflation was 13.5% and 10.5%, respectively, while in 2008 and 2009 it was 3.8% and -0.4%.

In Jan 1981 the 10-year T-note was 12.57%; in 2009 it was 2.52%. Reagan was facing an economy with high inflation and high interest rates. Obama was not.

Reagan's real growth rate, in the teeth of stagflation (with negative growth, high interest rates, and high inflation) was far better than Obama's. Obama faced a severe recession in 2009 and was aided greatly by the Federal Reserve, and still failed to realize strong post-recession growth.

Reagan objectively had a better economic record than Obama and arguably a more difficult economic environment in which to realize economic growth.

Inflation was bad in the 70s, no doubt. It declined to average 3.5% by the late 80s though. So, Reagan inherited a high inflationary environment in the first few years of office, but Obama had an $8T housing bubble. The world economics became so intertwined with shadow banking and complex derivatives products that the collapse took 2 years and 8 years to recover from.

We're talking about a huge revaluation in the economic system, not some high price distortions. The jobs fallout is indicative of just how bad things became. It was a complete shutdown in economic activity. Maybe people's lack in understanding of Obama, or his failure to communicate made it worse to markets to get back on their feet. But this was not some freak thing. It was the real thing.

Also, at the time, Reagan was dealing with malfunctioning markets due to misaligned policies from politicians running amok in previous administrations. Obama dealt with markets that had completely shutdown. The whole system was broken.

No, what you're saying is false. BUSH had to deal with a system that was completely shut down and was then bailed out in 2008 (when Bush was in office) via TARP. You're putting forth a myth that Obama "rescued" the US financial industry--it was rescued in 2008.

The real estate market bottomed out in 2009/2010. Presumably in the next, I don't know, 6 years economic growth would have picked back up as the stock market and real estate market boomed. That didn't happen because Obama raised tax rates and lost his mind with regulation.

Even if I accept the false premise that Obama had a worse economy to deal with than Reagan, one would expect a deep recession to result in a huge post-recessionary growth. Where was this growth? Where? Where?!

That's fair that Bush had to deal with the crisis and TARP, the selection of Ben Bernanke, all contributed to helping the FINANCIAL markets during the crisis.

But Obama ended the financial crisis, provided a lift to the US economy and in extension the global economy, as US as the last resort in consumption. He did it when he signed the extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2010, which credits Obama with $858B in tax cuts, and before he passed ARRA in June 2009--the Revcover Act--and ended the crisis. It provided billions to create government jobs, which might be why DC is booming so heavily now, and it also provided further tax cuts and unemployment benefits.

    • 4
Jan 31, 2018

1980s average =/= 1981. For fucks sake you try to make arguements by randomly changing the field of play when ever you feel like it.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Jan 31, 2018
iBankedUp:

Yeah you're right, the 2007 crisis was far worse than the 80s economic woes.

In what sense is the 2007 crisis "far worse" than the 80s economic woes? Care to elaborate?

Jan 31, 2018

How did you pass 3rd grade with that level of reading comprehension?

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Jan 31, 2018
iBankedUp:
InVinoVeritas:

Barack Obama added approximately $7.92 trillion to the total US Federal debt, a 68 percent increase from the $11.66 trillion in total debt at the end of George W. Bush's last budget, FY 2009.

By the way, George W. Bush was a terrible President. However, Obama was awful for this country from so many perspectives.

Obama actually slowed down the rate of increase in the national debt through raising taxes on top earners.

What.the.fuck.are.you.talking.about? Every sentence I read in this disaster post makes my head explode.

Deficits by year:

2001: +128B
2002: -158B
2003: -378B
2004: -413B
2005: -318B
2006: -248B
2007: -161B
2008: -459B
2009: -1.413T
2010: -1.3T
2011: -1.3T
2012: -1.01T
2013: -679B
2014: -485B
2015: -438B
2016: -585B

Calculate the average deficit from 2001 to 2008 and do the same for 2009 to 2016.

iBankedUp:

There's no direct relation to any specific economic component that is positive with cutting taxes.

LOL I can't. Dude. What is consumption a function of? What goes into the famous "marginal propensity to consume?" Reducing taxes is economic stimulus according to all economic frameworks. Obama's chief economist Christina Romer became famous by quantifying the stimulative effect of tax cuts on growth. You literally don't know what the fuck you're saying.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 31, 2018

@InVinoVeritas

Lol wow, just wow @ all your comments. This is what willful ignorance looks like folks.

Jan 31, 2018
Neutrino_CFO:

@InVinoVeritas

Lol wow, just wow @ all your comments. This is what willful ignorance looks like folks.

Thanks for providing a textbook example of what the left does when they lose an argument. "Willful ignorance" - I need to add this to my little book of smug leftist catchwords.

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Bro is on a CFO track. Show some respect. Lol

Jan 31, 2018
TNA:

Bro is on a CFO track. Show some respect. Lol

That's right. Get back to work future minions. Don't you have some excel spreadsheets to update or are you too busy twiddling your thumbs and keeping your seat warm?

Jan 31, 2018

Don't worry man, I'll just buy the company he works for just to make his life a living hell.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Feb 1, 2018

You're a pretentious douche who has an even worse grasp of English than economics. It's apparent you're trying to use elevated language to assert your intelligence but, you're not fooling anyone, Sport. Your points have no continuity of thought, jump from one amateurish take on econ to another and, are peppered with basic grammatical mistakes. If I had to guess, you're a young college kid at a third-rate school who likes to argue with derelict professors (hate to break it to you, no one's impressed and that's not going to get you laid). Word of advice, finish macro econ 100 in silence, lower your expectations (you're going to be a shitty cost accountant at a local business, not CFO), and quit spattering this thread with your miscarriages of logic and grammar.

    • 2
Jan 31, 2018
Great Ape Jake:

You're a pretentious douche who has an even worse grasp of English than economics. It's apparent you're trying to use elevated language to assert your intelligence but, you're not fooling anyone, Sport. Your points have no continuity of thought, jump from one amateurish take on econ to another and, are peppered with basic grammatical mistakes. If I had to guess, you're a young college kid at a third-rate school who likes to argue with derelict professors (hate to break it to you, no one's impressed and that's not going to get you laid). Word of advice, finish macro econ 100 in silence, lower your expectations (you're going to be a shitty cost accountant at a local business, not CFO), and quit spattering this thread with your miscarriages of logic and grammar.

Yea okay, it was only a matter of time until the high and mighty ad-hom slinger appeared in the thread. You are such the commendable person yourself with your choice of words.

Such enlightened, much smart, so respect.

What happened angry monkey, someone steal your banana?

    • 1
Feb 5, 2018

My dude is named "Great Ape Jake" and is still more eloquent than this @Neutrino_CFO guy hahahaha

Never thought I would see the day when I sided with a guy named "Great Ape Jake", but here we are :~)

Jan 31, 2018

"Rent money....... [is] going to continue going UP."

Can you expand on this? Every data point I have seen is pointing to rental growth stagnation, and in some submarkets there is downward pressure....

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Generalization here but workforce housing rent is going up while class A millennial focused rent is flatlining or going down (face value isn't going down, but 2 mo. concessions are everywehre). Overbuilding occurred in markets like Houston and Atlanta as a result of a glut of EZ cheap floating LIBOR money from commercial banks in 2013 through 2015.

Millenials can't pay ever increasing rents when so many are drowning in student debt.

Jan 31, 2018

If by 'workforce' housing you mean the likes of Amazon, etc, then yes. That's where I was going with my question, is that demand can't be taken in a vacuum either - there is ample supply coming online in the next few years (or existing already) to handle the demand increase in all but the absolutely highest supply constrained/lagged markets like LA, Seattle, etc.

EDIT: Also I think the student debt issue is overblown - that's a factor but in my mind the main reason why the growth is stagnating is that rental growth has outpaced wage growth by factors of 2 or 3x in some markets to the point where the incomes need time to catch up/adjust. That's why the comment lower down in the thread about 'increased disposable income leading to increased rents' is laughable. The rent growth has already exceeded wage growth for so long it's absurd.

    • 2
Jan 31, 2018

Completely agree about real wage growth lagging substantially behind rent growth, but don't underestimate the student loan situation. Education cost inflation has outpaced every other good/service over the past decade - its staggering. This has really killed discretionary income even for millennials like my attorney buddy who makes $100k+ per year but has $150k in student loans.

Also - "workforce housing" loosely refers to housing for those that make near or below the market median household income. Think housing that is affordable (but not subsidized affordable housing).

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

I get what you're saying, and that the costs are becoming egregious - but my main counter argument is that student debt is a voluntary undertaking. There are plenty of fairly high paying jobs that don't require student debt (or very low if so). So while some people don't do the homework, the assumption is that people have made a decision on what their earning potential is vs. what their debt encumbrance will be. You could make the same argument about rent to a degree, but people have to live somewhere.

I think that's a good comment on workforce housing, but the only thing I'll say is that I think it's tough to track that - a lot of those people will flock to class c/'tweener' properties that could be classified as SFH, and those data points get lost in translation since a lot of smaller HNW investors don't report rental agreements/YOY rates.

    • 2
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 31, 2018

I thought he gave a solid speech. It came off very presidential and I think deep down in his heart he does have Americas best interests in mind.

The Dems need to come to the table and negotiate on this immigration issue and begin to move past this.

I thought he pandered to the crowd a little too much, but thats all part of the "show"

    • 2
Jan 31, 2018

Is this a Trump thread about how great Trump was last night on the Trump stage for Trump? What is this Trump?

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

I'll also say, the GOP looks to be solidly unified. Great stuff from the speechwriters and the people who are on the team and actually care about the stuff Trump talked about. God, country, family values, constitutional ideology, etc. Trump was a Dem 10-20 years ago and a righteous white supremacist cozying up to Bannon less than 2 years ago.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Keep calling him a white supremacist, see how that works for you again.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Did he not support the Clintons and other dems, then promote up Bannon, leading to some crazy ideas and saying some stupid stuff. Trump does this thing where he metaphorically kicks the whole table over instead of just explaining what's on it, too.

I don't get it. What's with the hypocrisy and blindness of people like you? If someone didn't call Trump out on his shenanigans, he'd still be saying stuff like "transferring power back to you the people" and talking about the "administrative state" and all the other insane nonsense.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

It isn't blindness, it is knowing what the words actually mean.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Jan 31, 2018
iBankedUp:

I'll also say, the GOP looks to be solidly unified. Great stuff from the speechwriters and the people who are on the team and actually care about the stuff Trump talked about. God, country, family values, constitutional ideology, etc. Trump was a Dem 10-20 years ago and a righteous white supremacist cozying up to Bannon less than 2 years ago.

Saying vulgar and stupid shit does not make one a white supremacist. Look up that definition and the ideology before making such charges. David Duke and Richard Spencer are white supremacists, as they genuinely believe that whites are inherently superior to other races and that America belongs to them, with minorities being inferior unwelcome guests.

Jan 31, 2018

Aligning yourself with Bannon, who praises the work of Richard Spencer, does make you a white supremacist.

    • 2
Jan 31, 2018
iBankedUp:

Aligning yourself with Bannon, who praises the work of Richard Spencer, does make you a white supremacist.

Point to specific policies that Trump has advocated or implemented, which are white supremacist.

Trump hired Bannon because the Mercers told him to take him as campaign chairman in return for them giving him cash. Aside from the botched first travel ban, Bannon had virtually no policy impact because he was not aligned with Trump.

Jan 31, 2018
iBankedUp:

Aligning yourself with Bannon, who praises the work of Richard Spencer, does make you a white supremacist.

Yeah that literally never happened. Everything you say is wrong. Like objectively wrong.

Jan 31, 2018
Esuric:
iBankedUp:

Aligning yourself with Bannon, who praises the work of Richard Spencer, does make you a white supremacist.

Yeah that literally never happened. Everything you say is wrong. Like objectively wrong.

Lol, he made Bannon the Chief Strategist. There's an article that was published praising Richard Spencer or something, published in Breitbart during his time there. 1+1=2. We all have to grow up man. Trump is not perfect and maybe his presidency will go well enough to erase the thoughts most people have of him. At the moment, there's a lot of negative truth surrounding Trump people like you just aren't seeing.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 31, 2018
iBankedUp:
Esuric:
iBankedUp:

Aligning yourself with Bannon, who praises the work of Richard Spencer, does make you a white supremacist.

Yeah that literally never happened. Everything you say is wrong. Like objectively wrong.

Lol, he made Bannon the Chief Strategist. There's an article that was published praising Richard Spencer or something, published in Breitbart during his time there. 1+1=2. We all have to grow up man. Trump is not perfect and maybe his presidency will go well enough to erase the thoughts most people have of him. At the moment, there's a lot of negative truth surrounding Trump people like you just aren't seeing.

Yeah, "Richard Spencer or something." Dude, you're humiliating yourself. First it was "Bannon praised the work of Richard Spencer." Now it's "there's an article published praising Richard Spender or something." Neither of those two idiotic comments are even remotely close to right. It's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about and that you drank the entire barrel of kool aid.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018
Esuric:
iBankedUp:
Esuric:
iBankedUp:

Aligning yourself with Bannon, who praises the work of Richard Spencer, does make you a white supremacist.

Yeah that literally never happened. Everything you say is wrong. Like objectively wrong.

Lol, he made Bannon the Chief Strategist. There's an article that was published praising Richard Spencer or something, published in Breitbart during his time there. 1+1=2. We all have to grow up man. Trump is not perfect and maybe his presidency will go well enough to erase the thoughts most people have of him. At the moment, there's a lot of negative truth surrounding Trump people like you just aren't seeing.

Yeah, "Richard Spencer or something." Dude, you're humiliating yourself. First it was "Bannon praised the work of Richard Spencer." Now it's "there's an article published praising Richard Spender or something." Neither of those two idiotic comments are even remotely close to right. It's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about and that you drank the entire barrel of kool aid.

Cool it dweeb. You're really upset there. But look, in this article, Milo wrote in Breitbart that, "the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer," for his work in some Taki Magazine or whatever the fuck that is. In this article, he's celebrating the youth that have upset the establishment, creating the Alt-right. It's a celebration of those like Richard Spencer. Not to mention, it's Milo lol.

Hope this helps

    • 3
Jan 31, 2018

So you went from "Bannon praising Richard Spencer" to "an article published praising Richard Spencer or something" to linking an article that mentions the dude once and in no way praises him. In fact, the article openly discusses racist elements associated with his crowd. Also, you know you linked the same article twice, right?

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

His cadence and delivery is much better when he does his off-the-cuff shtick.

The Democrats came off as childish, but you could say the same thing about Republicans during Obama SOTU's.

I'm with Bernie Sanders when he was concerned that not once did Trump mention Global Warming. It's pretty clear that this administration doesn't give two shit about the environment which is sad.

I do like the progress he's making economically. Let's see if he can actually create real wage growth.

It'd be great for the country if he could get an infrastructure bill in the trillions signed. And props to going after pharmaceuticals and the opiate crisis.

Overall, I've moved from staunch disapproval of Trump to being open to being more open-minded moving forward.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Your approval of Trump is growing because of a thing called gaslighting.

It's a form of psychological manipulation either intentional or unintentional and it's what bullies do to confuse and manipulate their victims.

Very heavily used in politics. Trump just happens to be glaringly obvious with it, yet people will still fall in line behind the "big angry alpha monkey" because they want to be a part of the tribe.

Primitive tribal BS of an administration lol.

For example, when they were all chanting "USA, USA, USA"...it's clear depiction of an old school fraternal type culture, aka tribal mentality.

    • 6
Jan 31, 2018
Neutrino_CFO:

Your approval of Trump is growing because of a thing called gaslighting.

It's a form of psychological manipulation either intentional or unintentional and it's what bullies do to confuse and manipulate their victims.

Very heavily used in politics. Trump just happens to be glaringly obvious with it, yet people will still fall in line behind the "big angry alpha monkey" because they want to be a part of the tribe.

Primitive tribal BS of an administration lol.

For example, when they were all chanting "USA, USA, USA"...it's clear depiction of an old school fraternal type culture, aka tribal mentality.

You just described politics in general. Every President engages in psychological manipulation and getting people pumped up.

Jan 31, 2018

Trump is a results oriented alpha male - just like 99% of great leaders from world history. Most of us don't buy into the Neo-Marxist agenda that preaches masculinity as an evil roadblock to "progress".

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

"Results driven alpha male" you don't have to be a "neo-marxist" to see that Trumps behavior is inappropriate for the White House.

You would be better off claiming that he is deliberately acting that way for a reason in his efforts to "drain the swamp" however I don't think this is the case. He really just is an angry moronic monkey with no agenda other than collecting more bananas.

Jan 31, 2018

SOTU speeches, regardless of the President delivering it, is a self-indulgent travesty. It is political pageantry at its worst. Quite frankly, I think Presidents should stop doing them and simply deliver written statement to Congress annually, which is permitted by the Constitution and was the standard practice until Woodrow Wilson in 1913.

Having said that, my thoughts are below:

  1. Trump's delivery is awkward, but overall it was a solid speech. I wish it were more specific on some details, but the speech stayed true to Trump's core message of American exceptionalism, muscular but contained foreign policy, and promoting policies that put the interests of Americans ahead of foreign nationals.
  2. I could not help but think of how drastic the contrast is between Trump and Obama. Yes, Presidents usually different from their immediate predecessor, but the contrast is truly extreme. Of course, Obama is smarter, more articulate and charming, and a great communicator. His prepared speeches were symphonies; even for conservatives such as myself, they are pleasant to listen to. The biggest contrast though is not style but political philosophy. While Obama spent 8 years apologizing for American exceptionalism and acting like he was the President of the global community, Trump is unapologetically pro-American in all aspects.
  3. The $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan is mind blowing. Where are we getting the money? Sounds like a pipe dream, even though we desperately need to upgrade our third world infrastructure.
  4. On immigration, I agree with Trump entirely. His one mistake here was focusing so much on illegal alien crime rather than the economic impact on working class Americans of importing mass numbers of low skilled foreigners annually. He should have called out corporations for wanting cheap labor and call for e-verify. I do like that he talked about visa lotteries and chain migration, which in their current form, do not serve the interests of the average American.
  5. It was both amusing and sickening how anti-American the Democrats seemed. It's totally fine to oppose Trump and his policies, and we don't expect them to be giddy during the speech. But they refused to stand up when Trump talked about the historic low black unemployment, middle class Americans getting a tax cut, strong economy, defeating ISIS, securing our borders and protecting our citizens, respecting our flag, etc. Also, they actually invited illegal aliens as guests. Wow. The Democrats have moved so far left in the past decade that they are unrecognizable from even when Bill Clinton was President.
    • 7
    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

The Democrats and blacks don't stand because something as simple as kneeling during the anthem to the administration is misconstrued as unpatriotic and disrespecting the flag and country when the whole point of kneeling is to bring attention to the inequality.

Trump doesn't acknowledge their perspective, instead he silences their voices with nonsense.

So Trump is in office for less than a year and takes credit for low black unemployment, strong economy, and defeating ISIS?

Give me a break!

Securing our borders and protecting our citizens? YEA that's why he pissed off all the Muslims by implementing the travel ban AND declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel. And NOW he wants to open our borders to all Muslims and refugees?

Boy, are we in for a ride. The lack of critical thinking ability is increasingly frightening.

    • 7
Jan 31, 2018
Neutrino_CFO:

The lack of critical thinking ability is increasingly frightening.

Pot meet kettle.

Also, you're taking some serious Ls here man, maybe sit this one out for a while.

Jan 31, 2018

Yea it's no wonder I'm "taking L's" because this forum is full of investment banker groupies who have only one agenda, to get rich in order to pay off their overpriced MBAs and graduate degrees lol.

Sorry as the saying goes..."You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts".

    • 2
Jan 31, 2018

"You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts". You're taking L's because you literally haven't given one factual response or assertion in the entire thread. You've regurgitated shill opinions one after the other with zero data to back them up, and some of the assertions that you are making are flat out incorrect.

For example, your industry tag is RE, but you've demonstrated that you don't know the first thing about real estate economics.

"More discretionary income will also lead to more demand for housing. Higher demand = higher rates and rents." If you really believe this at face value, you need to take a step back. Do you understand that rent growth has outpaced wage growth in this country in basically every single top 25 metro by a factor of double or triple for the past ~5 years? Demand/supply for housing is not 1 for 1 with income growth... If it was, the last 5 year spurt I mentioned wouldn't have been possible. Population growth - existing inventory + incoming supply is the biggest driver of housing demand, not wage/DI growth. The wage increase in places like Seattle, etc has been a triangulation of in-migration, cost of living, construction economics, and talent/job market equilibrium.... Not the other way around.

    • 7
    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Quite an assessment you've got there. Bottom line is rent and mortgage rates are going to continue going up. And that is a direct result of the Trump tax cuts. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out, but it takes a special kind of person to attempt to claim anything otherwise.

"Do you understand that rent growth has outpaced wage growth in this country in basically every single top 25 metro by a factor of double or triple for the past ~5 years? Demand/supply for housing is not 1 for 1 with income growth"

Lol, what even are you on about?

Irrelevant. The point of the statement is that money doesn't come out of thin air and those $1,000 bonuses and wage increases aren't going to make anyone richer except for the already wealthy individuals. Any cut in taxes is going to be made up for by increasing costs elsewhere in the market. Be it oil/gas, housing, consumer/industrial goods...

It's really not that complicated and again, the only reason I am "taking L's" is because this board is full of Republican/Trump fanboys who only want to line their own pockets with cash. My statements are not agreeable to them which is why you see so many down votes, yet no reasonable arguments have been presented to counter my statements.

All anyone can do is throw monkey poo or nitpick on random little/irrelevant details like yourself because you know I'm right.

    • 3
Jan 31, 2018
Neutrino_CFO:

Lol, what even are you on about?

See below. This is quite relevant to the economy. As rent as a portion of household income grows, discretionary consumption decreases.

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/do...

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Sorry but that is the most basic analysis. Don't you know what ad-hoc reporting is?

For one thing an analysis like this would have to be broken up into different market segments (i.e. wealth, location, demographics).

Also has it occurred to you that traditional market analysis cannot be applied to RE market analysis?

They don't call it "alternative investments" for nothing.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

You just tried to apply CRE analysis to market analysis and then said that market analysis does not apply to CRE analysis.... Do you even understand how hypocritical you are? You are the embodiment of an IYI.

With your comment about 'increasing costs 'elsewhere, you do understand that those increased proceeds are driven by supply/demand of people willingly paying for those items, and that someone (with exception of OPEC) is not just price setting from on high (i.e., that the market dictates pricing)? For someone touting market analysis you don't understand basic economic fundamentals....

Basically, your whole argument is that 'tax cuts are bad because people will have more money and prices of things will go up'... Which is just ridiculous, since the cost of goods and services are always fluctuating. And even if this were true, this doesn't just happen overnight, there is a lag between an increase in disposable income and price inflation.

So you're dismissing that $1,000 incremental income for someone making the median or below median wage is not helpful? This is such an out of touch thing to say. Even for someone making 50K a year, which believe it or not in a lot of parts of the country is good money, that's a 2.5% increase in DI (assuming 20% effective tax), which makes a big difference to some people.

EDIT: You keep mentioning ad-hoc reporting as if it's some mystical, revered concept.... Almost every analysis covered in MSM is ad hoc.

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 31, 2018
MonkeyWrench:

You just tried to apply CRE analysis to market analysis and then said that market analysis does not apply to CRE analysis.... Do you even understand how hypocritical you are? You are the embodiment of an IYI.

With your comment about 'increasing costs 'elsewhere, you do understand that those increased proceeds are driven by supply/demand of people willingly paying for those items, and that someone (with exception of OPEC) is not just price setting from on high (i.e., that the market dictates pricing)? For someone touting market analysis you don't understand basic economic fundamentals....

Basically, your whole argument is that 'tax cuts are bad because people will have more money and prices of things will go up'... Which is just ridiculous, since the cost of goods and services are always fluctuating. And even if this were true, this doesn't just happen overnight, there is a lag between an increase in disposable income and price inflation.

So you're dismissing that $1,000 incremental income for someone making the median or below median wage is not helpful? This is such an out of touch thing to say. Even for someone making 50K a year, which believe it or not in a lot of parts of the country is good money, that's a 2.5% increase in DI (assuming 20% effective tax), which makes a big difference to some people.

EDIT: You keep mentioning ad-hoc reporting as if it's some mystical, revered concept.... Almost every analysis covered in MSM is ad hoc.

K well we will have to agree to disagree. I might have to consider changing my username to "I Told You So" because I can't possibly respond to everyone's nonsense when they are eventually proven wrong.

Also if you know what ad-hoc reporting and analysis is then use it. All you money grubbing bankers and "investment managers" are focused on is the bottom line. You see tax cuts and think everyone will automatically be richer. No long term perspective whatsoever. Get a clue.

Jan 31, 2018

Ah yes, the good old 'agree to disagree' after failing to provide anything resembling a coherent argument. If you're trolling, change your name to "I Trolled You So" instead, and if you're not, change your name to "Walking Hypocrisy".

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018
MonkeyWrench:

Ah yes, the good old 'agree to disagree' after failing to provide anything resembling a coherent argument.

Do you own research. It's not my responsibility to provide enlightenment. You monkeys aren't that important.

Jan 31, 2018

I've provided stats and verifiable data. All you've done is make unfounded claims and expect us to take them as fact. @InVinoVeritas also provided precise data. It's not that hard. Takes about as much time to do that as it does for you to craft your word-vomit drivel you've spewed to us thus far.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018
MonkeyWrench:

I've provided stats and verifiable data. All you've done is make unfounded claims and expect us to take them as fact. @InVinoVeritas also provided precise data. It's not that hard. Takes about as much time to do that as it does for you to craft your word-vomit drivel you've spewed to us thus far.

Your "stats and data" are one dimensional. I've already stated that several times in this thread.

My background is in audit and if you aren't clear with what that means, it means I have expert knowledge of revenue recognition and accounting standards.

One dimensional "stats and data" as you all have presented is easily manipulated data.

Just check out the new changes to US accounting standards in regards to revenue recognition and lease accounting. All these companies are going to have artificially inflated revenues to make them appear they are doing superior than they have in previous years. It doesn't mean they are operating more efficiently or effectively...it's just an accounting trick LMAO.

Sorry, you guys are in above your heads on this one. Research into all the insightful information I've provided to you all rather than dismissing it with your thickheaded and short-sighted analysis. .

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

I picked a specific argument of yours to refute, and was easily able to do it while walking it through standard economic logic.... Of course it is one dimensional because it was addressing a specific point. This is textbook why accountants/appraisers make awful investors.

EDIT: You're actually commenting/bringing in lease accounting / FASB standards now to prove that you're qualified to talk on this subject? This is getting so comical.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Exactly, you may be the more proficient investor and are trained to focus your attention on the bottom line, aka bigger returns into your pocket. I am focused on long-term sustainability and growth. That is what CFOs do after all isn't it?

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Right, because the CFO doesn't care about the bottom line at all. You are digging yourself such a deep hole here - please send me a postcard when you get to China.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Dude has a background in audit and is an expert lol. Fucking accountants.

Jan 31, 2018

I want to know where he gets a gig as CFO so I can short the FUCK out of the stock.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Who says the CFO doesn't care about the bottom line? You people have the equivalent minds of elementary school kids, good grief lol.

Look, I just threw you a bone here. We are taking two completely different angles on this.

YOU as the investor type, focused on the bottom line.
ME as the CFO type, focused on long-term sustainability and growth.

Of course your greedy selves are going to LOVE the disinformation that Trump is telling you...more money in your pockets.

However, with just a little bit more comprehension of how financial statements work, you would understand that it is all an illusion. The common pleb investor, much like yourselves, wouldn't know the difference. It wouldn't be the first time people like yourselves get duped.

Sorry, but what we have here are front row seats to witnessing what CRONY CAPITALISM looks like.

Fortunately I have a brain to see it. Unfortunately all you people see is greed and dollars.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Neutrino_CFO: "Who says the CFO doesn't care about the bottom line?"

Also Neutrino_CFO: "Exactly, you may be the more proficient investor and are trained to focus your attention on the bottom line, aka bigger returns into your pocket. I am focused on long-term sustainability and growth. That is what CFOs do after all isn't it?

Neutrino_CFO: "Of course your greedy selves are going to LOVE the disinformation that Trump is telling you..."

**Neutrino_CFO presented with facts/counterpoints/data***: "Oh that is one dimensional and irrelevant"

Also Neutrino_CFO: "The common pleb investor, much like yourselves, wouldn't know the difference. It wouldn't be the first time people like yourselves get duped."

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Claiming that my focus is on long-term sustainability and growth doesn't imply a complete disregard of the bottom line. Long-term sustainability and growth encompasses the bottom line as well as various other performance metrics and details.

In contrast, an amateur investor is focused solely on returns, aka the bottom line.

You guys keep dismissing my comments instead of taking them into consideration. You all have claimed you know what ad-hoc reporting and analysis is, yet here you are with your one-dimensional analysis and short-sighted perspective.

That's why CFOs are big picture strategic executives aka the Kings and Queens of the chessboard. Whereas you investment manager types are just Knights and Rooks.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

I look forward to your meteoric rise in the chessboard of life!

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

You are either a master troll or a textbook example of a delusional smug leftist with zero sense of reality.

Feb 1, 2018

Come on now, don't throw stones, man; you're going to need to do something to pay for your associates degree.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 31, 2018
Neutrino_CFO:

The Democrats and blacks don't stand because something as simple as kneeling during the anthem to the administration is misconstrued as unpatriotic and disrespecting the flag and country when the whole point of kneeling is to bring attention to the inequality.

Trump doesn't acknowledge their perspective, instead he silences their voices with nonsense.

So Trump is in office for less than a year and takes credit for low black unemployment, strong economy, and defeating ISIS?

Give me a break!

Securing our borders and protecting our citizens? YEA that's why he pissed off all the Muslims by implementing the travel ban AND declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel. And NOW he wants to open our borders to all Muslims and refugees?

Boy, are we in for a ride. The lack of critical thinking ability is increasingly frightening.

  1. First, BLM has grossly sensationalized and exaggerated the # of police killings of unarmed black men. It's around 30-40/year (many of them assaulted the cop or were reaching for his weapon). If Kaepernick and others want to protest the criminal justice system at large, there are multiple ways to do it that do not involve our flag. They could donate money to charities, go on speaking tours to raise awareness, do interviews with major news outlets, work with politicians to pass policy, etc. The whole flag stunt was self-serving and sent a terrible message to a lot of Americans.
  2. No one thinks that Trump or any other President deserves all the credit for the economy. We all know that Presidents don't have that much control over it. But yes, Trump's tax cut and deregulations have been helpful. Who knows what the economy will be like in the future.
  3. Oh no! How dare Trump piss off radical Muslims, ISIS, Palestinian Authority! What shall we do! Also, how is Trump opening the "borders to all Muslims and refugees?" Have you even looked at his proposal? It would not only increase border security but reduce legal immigration as well by transitioning into a merit based system. Also, Trump reduced the annual refugee intake as well as the religious composition: a far lower % of the refugees in 2017 were Muslim compared to prior years.
    • 1
    • 2
Jan 31, 2018

If it doesn't upset the apple cart it isn't a protest. Zero of your suggestions are actual protests. How was Kaepernick serving himself? He will never play in the NFL again because of that protest. It has cost him millions.

Economy has been discussed extensively in the other thread so no need to rehash.

Nothing to add on the muslim thing, original travel ban speaks for itself. His appointment of characters like Michael Flynn speaks for itself.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Think what he meant is that Kaepernick was doing it 'in protest' as in stating/showing his disapproval of the state of affairs, not like it was an actual organized 'protest'. But I agree it definitely wasn't self serving - I'm sure the guy had people (lawyers, entourage, etc.) that were telling him what could possibly happen. Although, I'm not so sure he would have been playing at that level for that much longer anyways, but that's an entirely different discussion

Jan 31, 2018
Dances With Newfoundland:

It was both amusing and sickening how anti-American the Democrats seemed. It's totally fine to oppose Trump and his policies, and we don't expect them to be giddy during the speech. But they refused to stand up when Trump talked about the historic low black unemployment, middle class Americans getting a tax cut, strong economy, defeating ISIS, securing our borders and protecting our citizens, respecting our flag, etc. Also, they actually invited illegal aliens as guests. Wow. The Democrats have moved so far left in the past decade that they are unrecognizable from even when Bill Clinton was President.

I think it's unfortunate for our country, but you have to admit...there are a lot of people on the left (maybe not the majority) that genuinely want this country to fail in some ways as long as Trump is at the helm. They are sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for the stock market to cash so they can blame it on Trump. They refuse to aknowledge anything good that is happening in our country out of fear that it will make Trump look good. This is just my take though...

As Greta said last night, they're not scared Trump is going to fail this country, they're scared he's going to succeed.

    • 2
Jan 31, 2018

Manipulation via the media is a sad thing. There are literally millions of blank minds out there that choose to allow a 3rd party to paint the picture of their thoughts and guide their actions. There is no pro-America sentiment travelling through their brains, it's "this is what I want or nothing at all!". No compromise, no tolerance.

Jan 31, 2018
FinanceRob:

Manipulation via the media is a sad thing. There are literally millions of blank minds out there that choose to allow a 3rd party to paint the picture of their thoughts and guide their actions. There is no pro-America sentiment travelling through their brains, it's "this is what I want or nothing at all!". No compromise, no tolerance.

The cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy is staggering, considering the left's entire platform is supposedly based on "tolerance".

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018
Click OK to Continue:

I think it's unfortunate for our country, but you have to admit...there are a lot of people on the left (maybe not the majority) that genuinely want this country to fail in some ways as long as Trump is at the helm. They are sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for the stock market to cash so they can blame it on Trump. They refuse to aknowledge anything good that is happening in our country out of fear that it will make Trump look good. This is just my take though...

As Greta said last night, they're not scared Trump is going to fail this country, they're scared he's going to succeed.

You could replace the word "left" with "right", and "Trump" with "Obama" in your statement and it would just as accurately reflect politics from 2009-2017. Case in point, Trumps public trust in economic figures before vs. after his election.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

Their entire identity is wrapped up in spiting conservative Americans. This is shown clearly by their policies that put illegal immigrants' "rights" over the well-being of actual citizens. I think it must be a form of mental illness.

Jan 31, 2018

I thought he did well overall staying on point. Funny that he sounded like a libtard at certain points. In particular, at one point he was mentioned employee investment and job training for poor Americans. Sounded exactly like Shillary or Obummer. But of course since it was coming from a Republican that makes it completely different. Whatever. The Dems consistently botched the delivery of that same message.

I actually found myself agreeing with him in principle on a few points, although the actual execution of his ideas is yet to be determined. In particular he mentioned a point about the working class that I think some in the Democratic Party currently badly misunderstands: many of them want work not welfare. Another point he made (and I was actually hoping for him to make) was reiterating that the Iran nuclear deal was absolutely nonsensical. But as far as I know he hasn't scrapped it yet.

Overall many of the ideas were fine but I'm skeptical of their implementation.

    • 2
Jan 31, 2018

It's difficult for me to take his optimism seriously when he's (historically been such) a negative person. Seems forced, scripted, and "un-Trump".

Feb 1, 2018

As long as the dems have Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, drooling Joe Kennedy III, and the rest of their ilk representing the democratic party, conservatives will continue thumping them.

Feb 1, 2018

Playing Devil's Advocate here, when in a recent election have the Dems been "thumped"? Seems like everything is set up for them to take back the House during the midterms while the Republicans keep the Senate.

Feb 1, 2018

We shall see what the mid-terms actually bring. Conservatives have won every special election save for the last, in Alabama, where the democrat had to defeat someone who many people considered a pedophile. Even with that moniker attached to Moore, he still only lost by less than 1%.

Not in favor of Roy Moore, and find it disgraceful that the repubs couldn't find a better candidate. Regardless, even the special election in MT, where the reporter got shoved to the ground by the then republican candidate, the republican won by a landslide. It actually probably got him more votes!

So, what is your definition of "seems like everything is set up form ....." How is that? How are the democrats poised to take back the house? Voter anger? Outrage over higher taxes? Less pay in their checks? Less affordable healthcare? Fewer jobs on the market? The economy spiraling down the tubes? Pray-tell, what is the "set up" for your democrats? Just playing devil's advocate, of course.

Feb 1, 2018

In an overall sense it is always hard for a party in power to remain popular in the eyes of the public due to the fact that the minority party will always be selling the voter that "their party will be able to make things better". The most famous examples of this were the 1994 and 2010 Republican waves while a Democrat was in the Oval Office.

Obviously the Alabama election was a huge anomaly, but if we take a state like VA we can see that left leaning voters are being charged up and flipped a good amount of red seats in areas that are typically solid red. They even voted in a transgender woman in a district where the incumbent wrote the VA bill about having people only using the bathroom to their assigned gender.

I know it is not a good long term strategy to only look at social issues, but the Democrats should be able to take issues like Charlottesville, Sh*thole controversy, and cherrypick facts like specific jobs leaving despite the tax cuts and take back enough seats to gain a majority in the House. Especially considering a little less than 40 incumbent House Republicans are not going to run for re-election. Despite this I would be surprised if the Republicans don't gain a bigger majority in the Senate.

Feb 1, 2018

If you're using VA as a surrogate for the entire nation, I submit to you that would be a very poor representation. The vast majority of Virginians are conservative, However, there is a bastion of staunch liberals in and around the capital. McCollough (sp?) is a joke and damned near a communist. He just happens to be in the most liberal area of VA.

As for your suggestion that the dems will be able to cherry-pick specific issues, with quotes taken out of context and the whole thing, I believe the general public is actually starting to question the validity of the MSM. Considering this was the most widely watched SOU address in history, and guess which network won the ratings night? Foxnews. It is laughable to continue to hear the hollow drum-beat from the dems about this "Armageddon" of a tax bill, and our president being a racist (while at the same time, black unemployment is at the lowest point in recorded history), or that he doesn't understand foreign policy, when he has nearly eradicated ISIS in less than 18 months, he has the EU kicking in their fair share to the IMF again (ditto for France and several others), he is........... I don't need to go on ad infinitum.

Suffice it to say, I would not be surprised at all if the repubs maintain control of the house. If not, I do not think that is, in any way, an indictment on the job our president is doing. Voters are fickle and the counter-movement has nothing better to do than to continue to fan the flames of separation in our society, so yes, it certainly is possible. It is not, however, a certainty.

Feb 2, 2018

"Considering this was the most widely watched SOU address in history"

LMAO this has to be a troll account.......alternative facts are alive and well

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 31, 2018
dm100:

If you're using VA as a surrogate for the entire nation, I submit to you that would be a very poor representation. The vast majority of Virginians are conservative, However, there is a bastion of staunch liberals in and around the capital. McCollough (sp?) is a joke and damned near a communist. He just happens to be in the most liberal area of VA.

As for your suggestion that the dems will be able to cherry-pick specific issues, with quotes taken out of context and the whole thing, I believe the general public is actually starting to question the validity of the MSM. Considering this was the most widely watched SOU address in history, and guess which network won the ratings night? Foxnews. It is laughable to continue to hear the hollow drum-beat from the dems about this "Armageddon" of a tax bill, and our president being a racist (while at the same time, black unemployment is at the lowest point in recorded history), or that he doesn't understand foreign policy, when he has nearly eradicated ISIS in less than 18 months, he has the EU kicking in their fair share to the IMF again (ditto for France and several others), he is........... I don't need to go on ad infinitum.

Suffice it to say, I would not be surprised at all if the repubs maintain control of the house. If not, I do not think that is, in any way, an indictment on the job our president is doing. Voters are fickle and the counter-movement has nothing better to do than to continue to fan the flames of separation in our society, so yes, it certainly is possible. It is not, however, a certainty.

I don't want to re-litigate the VA election, but the main population center of NOVA (Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William) are now decisively Democratic due to the combination of well educated affluent professionals who are turned off by Trump, minorities, and government workers. The trend has been pretty decisive. Bush won Fairfax county in 2000 and lost it to Kerry by around 7 points in 2004. Trump lost it to Hillary by around 34 points.

As for the VA governor race, Northam massively outperformed the polling, which showed him with a 2-3 point lead. He won by 9 points, the largest margin by a Democrat in the VA governor race since 1985. Gillespie ran a strong campaign and actually did well with Trump voters and did better with minorities than Trump did. However, college whites in NOVA voted for Northam by a wide margin. My biggest fear is that despite the economy and policy successes, Trump's personal brand will be so toxic that college educated suburban whites will vote against the GOP just to make a point, even if they agree with our policies.

The one silver lining is polling showing the generic Democratic lead down to 4-5 points while in November it was around 12-15. I think the fact that most Americans are getting a tax cut (contrary to media hysteria) will percolate and have a positive impact. But November is far away, and anything can happen.

Feb 1, 2018

Okay Che, Perhaps I was misinformed or misunderstood what was said on the radio. The primary point was the fact that the majority of viewers chose to watch a network that isn't oozing with left-coast liberalism when they tuned in to the SOU.

This is not a troll account and I would relish the opportunity to discuss facts, not feelings or aspirations. So I'm happy to engage in civil discourse with you about topics. What would you like to enlighten me on since I'm obviously too dumb to have any of my facts straight. Please, thrill me with your acumen.

Feb 2, 2018

"Okay Che, Perhaps I was misinformed or misunderstood what was said on the radio. The primary point was the fact that the majority of viewers chose to watch a network that isn't oozing with left-coast liberalism when they tuned in to the SOU."

11.7 million watched the SOU on Fox. 11.7/45.6 = 25.7%. A majority of viewers did NOT watch the SOU on Fox. Your primary point is also wrong.

EDIT: And for the record, I don't think you are dumb. Just misinformed on a couple of things.

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

    • 1
Jan 31, 2018

http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/01/media/trump-sotu-r...
So this is where I assume you got your infographic. CNN, as claimed.

Trump likely was not the most watched. Everyone knows Trump is sensational and self promoting. The media crucifies him for this, but if he was to say (top 6 most viewed SOTU) the media was crucify him for the low numbers. The media has created the reality that there is nothing to gain by being truthful.

And like usual, the media shows only Nielson data, without realizing that the media world has changed, or providing context.

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2018/vi...
Here is the source information. Not the cherry picked trash that the joke of a "news network" CNN pushes.

If you sort the data, you can clearly see viewership higher in the early years when all the other channels of media were less developed. And this is no surprise as Nielson becomes less and less relevant.

http://adage.com/article/media/nielsen-struggles-m...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/business/media/...
This is absolutely what I call "does this pass the sniff test".

Was Trump's SOTU the most viewed and watched in history? Most likely not. Is CNN and the other media outlets being forthright, honest and transparent in their criticism? Absolutely not. The media has the responsibility and it is their job to present the facts. Trump does not. His job is to promote himself and his agenda and his party.

I mean do you really think Obama got less views than mid term Clinton? And these numbers aren't even correct when you look at the Nielson source.

Per Nielson, Trump got 47,741,000 combined views, roughly 250K less than 2010 Obama.

In fact, it seems as if Trumps numbers are misrepresented, and Clinton should be number one, per the data.

Also, just read the CNN article.

"There's no reliable data for live-streaming, but research indicates that the vast majority of people still watch big events on TV, not the web."

Ok, what research? Lets see the source.

Rest of the article is just silliness. Basically what I would expect from the Onion (aka CNN).

Jan 31, 2018
dm100:

Okay Che, Perhaps I was misinformed or misunderstood what was said on the radio. The primary point was the fact that the majority of viewers chose to watch a network that isn't oozing with left-coast liberalism when they tuned in to the SOU.

This is not a troll account and I would relish the opportunity to discuss facts, not feelings or aspirations. So I'm happy to engage in civil discourse with you about topics. What would you like to enlighten me on since I'm obviously too dumb to have any of my facts straight. Please, thrill me with your acumen.

Here are some facts. Let's break down of viewership by network:

Fox News - 11.7 million
FOX - 3.6 million
CNN - 3.1 million
MSNBC - 2.7 million
ABC - 5.4 million
NBC - 7.1 million
CBS - 7 million

So let's lump fox in with fox news. According to trump's anti-MSM tweets, the rest of those networks are what I imagine you're referring to by "oozing with left-coast liberalism".

Looking at the numbers, fox and fox news combined still made up only 30% of total viewership. When weighed against "left-coast liberalism", the numbers are actually 14.8M to 25.3M. So not only did the "left-coast liberal" networks actually destroy conservative tv viewership, ratings among those networks combined actually reaches a true majority among viewership.

Now I'm not sure if the total viewership numbers include internet streaming, but you'd imagine most internet viewers would be of the younger, and by correlation more liberal demographic that is more likely to trust MSM. So if you want to look at viewership by cable network as an indicator of presidential approval or trust in MSM you need to take into account potential bias in cable network access and trends across viewing mediums.

Of course, this is a stupid question because at the end of the day what network does it matter you watch it on when it's just footage of Trump talking? It's like people calling the "mocking the disabled journalist" story fake news because CNN showed it a bunch of times, when really it's just footage of trump being trump, no commentary necessary.

Edit: By internet streaming I mean streaming services that aren't already linked with tv networks. E.g. NYTimes will sometimes stream important speeches and debates.

Feb 1, 2018

Frankly, the viewership question is over. I could care less how many viewers watched on CBS versus NBC. I just know the lions share of the night went to Foxnews. Period.

I was challenging you to engage me in something you must feel strongly about politically, considering you were bold enough to accuse me of being a troll. You obviously have a firm grasp on precisely the number of viewers who watched what, where, so you must also have a cogent enough response to the OP, or to engage me with some political discourse. I would find that quite enjoyable I do believe.

Meanwhile, the dems continue to get pelted by trying to obfuscate, cover up and downplay the latest pie in their face from the release of the FISA memo. Know about that one??

Jan 31, 2018
dm100:

I was challenging you to engage me in something you must feel strongly about politically, considering you were bold enough to accuse me of being a troll.

I think you have me confused with the other guy.

dm100:

You obviously have a firm grasp on precisely the number of viewers who watched what, where, so you must also have a cogent enough response to the OP,

Because distribution of news ratings has nothing to do with the actual substance of the speech, which is what the OP was about.

dm100:

or to engage me with some political discourse. I would find that quite enjoyable I do believe.

I don't understand how my post wasn't thoughtful, sincerely thought out, and, most importantly, based on facts.

Feb 1, 2018

My sincere apologies. I did get you confused. I immediately thought you were the individual who'd accused me of being a troll, simply because I'd apparently made a misstatement regarding a ratings announcement I heard on talk radio on my way to work the other day.

Please do accept my apologies. I, in no way, was attempting to be confrontational to you. My post was meant for one individual only.

Have a good day.

Feb 2, 2018

LMAO that troll comment got you this riled up?? Jeez dude, it's the internet, calm down. I won't even make a Spicer joke.

Sure, we can talk about political issues if you'd like. Though, I'd appreciate it if you'd fact check yourself before posting, as you've been called out twice now for misrepresenting the facts. What is so damning about the memo? I haven't read it yet, unfortunately, but have a feeling it may be another nothingburger from Nunes.

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

Feb 1, 2018

I take it personally when my honesty or integrity is questioned. The facts you keep referring to that I got wrong were not wrong, with the possible exception as to the numbers. Foxnews got the most viewers. No need to argue that fact.

Perhaps it's a "nothingburger" as you so eloquently put it. love the props to Hilary. Perhaps you should read it before making that assumption.

when was the last nothingburger from Nunes?

As for my fact-checking, I will be certain to have all of my facts and faculties in order should you choose to actually pose an issue to discuss instead of continuing to harp on non-issues.

Feb 2, 2018

"The primary point was the fact that **the majority **of viewers chose to watch a network that isn't oozing with left-coast liberalism when they tuned in to the SOU."

Did you type that and is it accurate? I didn't question whether Foxnews got the most viewers, I questioned whether that constituted a majority of the viewers. You are the one using "most" and "majority" interchangeably.

"Perhaps it's a "nothingburger" as you so eloquently put it. love the props to Hilary. Perhaps you should read it before making that assumption."

So, I'm guessing you haven't read it either....but you know the democrats have "pie in their face"?

I know you don't, but I chose my words carefully: I am not assuming it's a nothingburger, merely asserting I have a feeling it may end up being that. If anything, it's a mild prediction, certainly not an assumption. I'm waiting to actually read the memo and the counter response to make any sort of final judgment.

"love the props to Hilary"

I genuinely don't get it. For the record, I'm not a fan of the Clintons.

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

Jan 31, 2018

"Fact check"

Aka screen capture from CNN without context.

Does it pass the smell test. Trump, the most vilified president, his first state of the union, every liberal dying for him to say something so they can get upset up, and no one watches it.

Sorry, not saying it was the most watched, but saying it was watched less than mid term bush, please. Fake news.

Stats can be manipulated to show anything. If something doesn't pass the basic sniff test, fuck it.

Feb 1, 2018

Yes, TNA, I didn't even bother to address the source of che's screenshot from communist news network. These people are good for a comedy break if nothing else.

Che - regarding the fact that you "genuinely don't get" the props to Hilary remark, "nothingburger" is what Hilary was trying to push her private server story as, along with the her heavily redacted remarks associated with the Benghazi attacks.

It makes perfect sense now. If you are getting your facts from cnn, well, that is your issue. I suspect you're pretty young. Is "nothingburger" a term you heard while taking 20 seconds to sit on cnn, trying to find a screenshot that you could use to buttress your position? For someone who wants to address me checking the facts, I find it interesting that you aren't even informed enough to know the origin of one of the biggest slang terms of 2017

Feb 2, 2018
  1. You think "nothingburger" originated in 2017? And from Hillary Clinton?
  2. You think it was one the biggest slang term of 2017? You likely don't get out much lol
  3. You complain that the figures are wrong due to the source. Alright, can you please provide data that proves it wrong? And, I can't stress this enough, your conservative radio gave you false information, which you proceeded to spread here.
  4. You said I get my facts from CNN and took issue with that, but at no point did you refute what I provided. You just said that's my issue and started rambling on? So are they facts or not? And if not, why not?
  5. What does me asking for you to check your "facts" (due to your false statements) have to do with me not knowing the "origin" of nothingburger?

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

    • 1
Feb 4, 2018

6ds chess move by Trump.

1) Give a uniting speech that makes him appeal to everyone and make Democrats look like extremists.

2) Release Nunes memo so that the extremist losers now are revealed as conspirators trying to bring down a democratically elected, unifying government.

It's check and mate.

Feb 5, 2018

Democrats are getting played pretty savagely, at every turn. It is because they lead with their emotions, instead of leading with their brains. Par for the course, though, for a group that panders to the lowest common denominator. Pandering to certain "demographics" for votes has been their platform since the Civil Rights era.

    • 2
    • 1
Feb 5, 2018

after barely reading this thread i would like to say that @Neutrino_CFO is now the worst account on WSO again

@ForexOptions you are only second worst now you can come back and start posting about your silly nonsensical trading activities for like 30 bucks again

Jan 31, 2018