You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
slcpunk wrote:Smoking Guns wrote:Yesterday was bad. Today was good. Reality is in the middle.
Reality is that the stock market is in turmoil because we're being led by a first rate clown. What's happening is not normal.
So the reason it is up 6,000 points since the election is also because of him as well then. Interesting.
It nearly tripled under Obama, yet all I hear from Republicans is how bad the economy was under him. 
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Smoking Guns wrote:slcpunk wrote:Reality is that the stock market is in turmoil because we're being led by a first rate clown. What's happening is not normal.
So the reason it is up 6,000 points since the election is also because of him as well then. Interesting.
It nearly tripled under Obama, yet all I hear from Republicans is how bad the economy was under him.
Tripled under Obama partly due to Fed keeping rates at 0. Also was getting back to old numbers. So much of that gain was getting back to where it was. He gets some credit but once trump took over it actually exploded. There is no denying that.
Re: US Politics Thread
It finally occurred to me you don't understand why you're being criticized. I am going to attempt to explain this to you without out my typical cynicism and scorn.
When you're pushed to show your Trump supporting colors, you've exposed what matters to you...and it doesn't appear that you care about much.
You care about 1) the economy and 2) the stock market and 3) tax cuts. There may be more to it, but I think those three things comprise the bulk of why you support him.
Let's just start with number one. If the economy matters to you that much, then it shouldn't matter who is president as long as the economy improves or is doing well. This is where you show your bias. The economy did very well under Obama and his administrative policies. You refuse to admit that. You clearly look at Trump and Obama through two different lenses. That hurts your credibility when we have these arguments. It's clear that the success of the economy doesn't accurately get reflected in the way that you analyze these situations. What matters is a) how well the economy is doing and b) who is in charge.
In other words, you want to ascribe credit not just based on the success of the economy. Let's take something you said in the post above.
You say, ' Tripled under Obama partly due to Fed keeping rates at 0. Also was getting back to old numbers. So much of that gain was getting back to where it was. He gets some credit but once trump took over it actually exploded. There is no denying that.'
So you're saying that the gains made during the Obama years don't mean as much because 'so much of that gains was getting back to where it was.' If you don't see how ridiculous it is to discredit the Obama era economy because of the abysmal failures of the previous administration then there really is no helping you. It smells of bias and it's transparently illogical.
Furthermore, it assumes that you don't believe there is any relationship between the trajectory of the Obama economy and where we're at now. You analyze things in this weird vacuum where you basically presume that nothing before November 2016 has anything to do with what happened after. Even though every piece of data, every objective graph or table shows we were already trending this way and would likely be here almost regardless of who followed Obama assuming nothing drastic occurred. Again, illogical and irrational.
Finally, you state that the Fed inflated any success Obama had by keeping interesting rates at or near 0 for his tenure. This is the closest thing you have to a solid point, but it isn't that solid. I grant you that keeping the interest rates that low is certainly helpful for an economy. However, what you fail to understand is why a rate is raised or lowered. (How many times did conservatives criticize Obama's economy over this point? And now you're completely flip flopping and requesting that rates stay low).
When rates were lowered to 0, during Obama's tenure, it had most to do with the fact that Americans' confidence in the economy couldn't get any lower. 2008 was a terrible year. In order to help rebuild that confidence, the Feds dropped the rates to 0. There are other things you can do to build confidence in the economy. That's just the one you've singled out repeatedly. From 2009 to date, I think it's safe to say that Americans have a much higher degree of confidence. When the economy is booming, as it has for at least the last 5 years, confidence rises. There are things that need to be adjusted for this new climate we're in...one of those adjustments comes in the form of raising the interest rate. Based on many sources, some of which I've shared with you, I've shown you how historically low the rate still is. At 2.5 percent, we're still on the very low end of the typical range of interest rates (2-6 percent). There are other articles out there that say for our current economic climate that it should be a much higher interest rate based on the current circumstances.
But despite all of these objective mile markers that tell us when and to raise/lower interest rates...you continue to complain about it happening.
All of this furthers the idea that your stance on the issue of rate hikes by the Fed. reserve comes from a partisan place in my eyes.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
It finally occurred to me you don't understand why you're being criticized. I am going to attempt to explain this to you without out my typical cynicism and scorn.
When you're pushed to show your Trump supporting colors, you've exposed what matters to you...and it doesn't appear that you care about much.
You care about 1) the economy and 2) the stock market and 3) tax cuts. There may be more to it, but I think those three things comprise the bulk of why you support him.
Let's just start with number one. If the economy matters to you that much, then it shouldn't matter who is president as long as the economy improves or is doing well. This is where you show your bias. The economy did very well under Obama and his administrative policies. You refuse to admit that. You clearly look at Trump and Obama through two different lenses. That hurts your credibility when we have these arguments. It's clear that the success of the economy doesn't accurately get reflected in the way that you analyze these situations. What matters is a) how well the economy is doing and b) who is in charge.
In other words, you want to ascribe credit not just based on the success of the economy. Let's take something you said in the post above.
You say, ' Tripled under Obama partly due to Fed keeping rates at 0. Also was getting back to old numbers. So much of that gain was getting back to where it was. He gets some credit but once trump took over it actually exploded. There is no denying that.'
So you're saying that the gains made during the Obama years don't mean as much because 'so much of that gains was getting back to where it was.' If you don't see how ridiculous it is to discredit the Obama era economy because of the abysmal failures of the previous administration then there really is no helping you. It smells of bias and it's transparently illogical.
Furthermore, it assumes that you don't believe there is any relationship between the trajectory of the Obama economy and where we're at now. You analyze things in this weird vacuum where you basically presume that nothing before November 2016 has anything to do with what happened after. Even though every piece of data, every objective graph or table shows we were already trending this way and would likely be here almost regardless of who followed Obama assuming nothing drastic occurred. Again, illogical and irrational.
Finally, you state that the Fed inflated any success Obama had by keeping interesting rates at or near 0 for his tenure. This is the closest thing you have to a solid point, but it isn't that solid. I grant you that keeping the interest rates that low is certainly helpful for an economy. However, what you fail to understand is why a rate is raised or lowered. (How many times did conservatives criticize Obama's economy over this point? And now you're completely flip flopping and requesting that rates stay low).
When rates were lowered to 0, during Obama's tenure, it had most to do with the fact that Americans' confidence in the economy couldn't get any lower. 2008 was a terrible year. In order to help rebuild that confidence, the Feds dropped the rates to 0. There are other things you can do to build confidence in the economy. That's just the one you've singled out repeatedly. From 2009 to date, I think it's safe to say that Americans have a much higher degree of confidence. When the economy is booming, as it has for at least the last 5 years, confidence rises. There are things that need to be adjusted for this new climate we're in...one of those adjustments comes in the form of raising the interest rate. Based on many sources, some of which I've shared with you, I've shown you how historically low the rate still is. At 2.5 percent, we're still on the very low end of the typical range of interest rates (2-6 percent). There are other articles out there that say for our current economic climate that it should be a much higher interest rate based on the current circumstances.
But despite all of these objective mile markers that tell us when and to raise/lower interest rates...you continue to complain about it happening.
All of this furthers the idea that your stance on the issue of rate hikes by the Fed. reserve comes from a partisan place in my eyes.
The Fed’s main purpose is to curb inflation. There isn’t any real inflation. At this point there is ZERO need to raise rates unless you want to cause a recession. We have a big debt problem in this world. This is the other problem.
Your old historic numbers don’t matter anymore. Need to assess the current situation. Can’t compare eras like they are apples to apples.
Re: US Politics Thread
PaSnow wrote:Smoking Guns wrote:So the reason it is up 6,000 points since the election is also because of him as well then. Interesting.
It nearly tripled under Obama, yet all I hear from Republicans is how bad the economy was under him.
Tripled under Obama partly due to Fed keeping rates at 0. Also was getting back to old numbers. So much of that gain was getting back to where it was. He gets some credit but once trump took over it actually exploded. There is no denying that.
He took over the Dow was 7,000. It took until 2013 for it to hit record highs. From 2013-2017 it continued to rise. From January 2018 - Present it's gone down.
Point to exactly where on the Dow Jones historical chart it becomes obvious Trump took over.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Smoking Guns wrote:PaSnow wrote:It nearly tripled under Obama, yet all I hear from Republicans is how bad the economy was under him.
Tripled under Obama partly due to Fed keeping rates at 0. Also was getting back to old numbers. So much of that gain was getting back to where it was. He gets some credit but once trump took over it actually exploded. There is no denying that.
He took over the Dow was 7,000. It took until 2013 for it to hit record highs. From 2013-2017 it continued to rise. From January 2018 - Present it's gone down.
Point to exactly where on the Dow Jones historical chart it becomes obvious Trump took over.
The market currently is up 5,500 points or 30% since the day before trump was elected. What fucking crack are you mother fuckers smoking. Even with a bad 2018 you are still up unless you just now started investing in December 2018. Lol.
Re: US Politics Thread
PaSnow wrote:Smoking Guns wrote:Tripled under Obama partly due to Fed keeping rates at 0. Also was getting back to old numbers. So much of that gain was getting back to where it was. He gets some credit but once trump took over it actually exploded. There is no denying that.
He took over the Dow was 7,000. It took until 2013 for it to hit record highs. From 2013-2017 it continued to rise. From January 2018 - Present it's gone down.
Point to exactly where on the Dow Jones historical chart it becomes obvious Trump took over.
The market currently is up 5,500 points or 30% since the day before trump was elected. What fucking crack are you mother fuckers smoking. Even with a bad 2018 you are still up unless you just now started investing in December 2018. Lol.
lol, it was up 25% Obama's first year, Bwahahahha. Then another 10% his second year. Thanks Obama! and that's before we started hitting record highs from 2013-2018!!
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:It finally occurred to me you don't understand why you're being criticized. I am going to attempt to explain this to you without out my typical cynicism and scorn.
When you're pushed to show your Trump supporting colors, you've exposed what matters to you...and it doesn't appear that you care about much.
You care about 1) the economy and 2) the stock market and 3) tax cuts. There may be more to it, but I think those three things comprise the bulk of why you support him.
Let's just start with number one. If the economy matters to you that much, then it shouldn't matter who is president as long as the economy improves or is doing well. This is where you show your bias. The economy did very well under Obama and his administrative policies. You refuse to admit that. You clearly look at Trump and Obama through two different lenses. That hurts your credibility when we have these arguments. It's clear that the success of the economy doesn't accurately get reflected in the way that you analyze these situations. What matters is a) how well the economy is doing and b) who is in charge.
In other words, you want to ascribe credit not just based on the success of the economy. Let's take something you said in the post above.
You say, ' Tripled under Obama partly due to Fed keeping rates at 0. Also was getting back to old numbers. So much of that gain was getting back to where it was. He gets some credit but once trump took over it actually exploded. There is no denying that.'
So you're saying that the gains made during the Obama years don't mean as much because 'so much of that gains was getting back to where it was.' If you don't see how ridiculous it is to discredit the Obama era economy because of the abysmal failures of the previous administration then there really is no helping you. It smells of bias and it's transparently illogical.
Furthermore, it assumes that you don't believe there is any relationship between the trajectory of the Obama economy and where we're at now. You analyze things in this weird vacuum where you basically presume that nothing before November 2016 has anything to do with what happened after. Even though every piece of data, every objective graph or table shows we were already trending this way and would likely be here almost regardless of who followed Obama assuming nothing drastic occurred. Again, illogical and irrational.
Finally, you state that the Fed inflated any success Obama had by keeping interesting rates at or near 0 for his tenure. This is the closest thing you have to a solid point, but it isn't that solid. I grant you that keeping the interest rates that low is certainly helpful for an economy. However, what you fail to understand is why a rate is raised or lowered. (How many times did conservatives criticize Obama's economy over this point? And now you're completely flip flopping and requesting that rates stay low).
When rates were lowered to 0, during Obama's tenure, it had most to do with the fact that Americans' confidence in the economy couldn't get any lower. 2008 was a terrible year. In order to help rebuild that confidence, the Feds dropped the rates to 0. There are other things you can do to build confidence in the economy. That's just the one you've singled out repeatedly. From 2009 to date, I think it's safe to say that Americans have a much higher degree of confidence. When the economy is booming, as it has for at least the last 5 years, confidence rises. There are things that need to be adjusted for this new climate we're in...one of those adjustments comes in the form of raising the interest rate. Based on many sources, some of which I've shared with you, I've shown you how historically low the rate still is. At 2.5 percent, we're still on the very low end of the typical range of interest rates (2-6 percent). There are other articles out there that say for our current economic climate that it should be a much higher interest rate based on the current circumstances.
But despite all of these objective mile markers that tell us when and to raise/lower interest rates...you continue to complain about it happening.
All of this furthers the idea that your stance on the issue of rate hikes by the Fed. reserve comes from a partisan place in my eyes.
The Fed’s main purpose is to curb inflation. There isn’t any real inflation. At this point there is ZERO need to raise rates unless you want to cause a recession. We have a big debt problem in this world. This is the other problem.
Your old historic numbers don’t matter anymore. Need to assess the current situation. Can’t compare eras like they are apples to apples.
It has more responsibility than curb inflation....
You didn’t respond to any of my points. This is a total cop out.
I left just kinda scratching my head.
