SURVEY: Do you want Trump to finish his first term?

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

 

Fed Reserve chief Powell ,backs more rate hikes as economy growing 'considerably stronger'

 

 

"Federal reserve head Powell, painted a largely positive picture of the economy, which he said is expanding at an increasing pace and is being boosted by aggressive fiscal policy on Capitol Hill".

"Robust job gains, rising after-tax incomes, and optimism among households have lifted consumer spending in recent months. Investment by businesses has continued to grow at a healthy rate," he said. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/17/powell-backs-more-rate-hikes-as-economy-growing-considerably-stronger.html

Record low unemployment,anticipated to fall even lower!

The economy  was hurting prior to the election ,it's growing since the election .This is why most people voted for PT.To win again with jobs,jobs,jobs.

 

And I think it's sad you accept those unemployment numbers when their dishonesty has been so effectively proven by a certain party:

"In fact, Trump has called the unemployment figure “fake” as many as 19 times before he embraced the numbers as president. And, nearly a year ago, we gave Trump Four Pinocchios for claiming “the unemployment figure, as you know, is totally fiction,” during a rally in Des Moines."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/12/14/comparing-the-trump-economy-to-the-obama-economy/?utm_term=.5b950d5ca0c7

 

Or are you calling Donald Trump a liar?

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Tell us how much any president has to do with the stock market's performance.

And for that matter, tell us how much the stock market's performance reflects what's going on in the actual economy and how much it affects the financial situation of most Americans.

The president doesn't have much at all to do with the stock market. Whatever neglible affect a president may have is just as likely to be appreciated during the tenure of the following president.

 

The stock market has practically nothing to do with what is going on in the actual economy. Or at least the past couple of decades it hasn't. It CAN affect the financial situation of most Americans however depending on how the FED adjusts interest rates, how pension funds project future returns, the "wealth effect", etc.

[bristolboy]

24 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

The president doesn't have much at all to do with the stock market. Whatever neglible affect a president may have is just as likely to be appreciated during the tenure of the following president.

 

The stock market has practically nothing to do with what is going on in the actual economy. Or at least the past couple of decades it hasn't. It CAN affect the financial situation of most Americans however depending on how the FED adjusts interest rates, how pension funds project future returns, the "wealth effect", etc.

84 percent of stocks that are owned by Americans either directly or through retirement funds are owned by the top 10 percent  of income earners. So not much of an effect for most Americans. Whatever wealth most Americans may have is from home ownership.

I don't think the Fed considers the stock market when it adjusts rates. It's inflation and employment figures that count the most by far.

And only 65 percent of stocks are owned by Americans. 35 percent are owned by foreigners so whatever benefits are realized go to them.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

84 percent of stocks that are owned by Americans either directly or through retirement funds are owned by the top 10 percent  of income earners. So not much of an effect for most Americans. Whatever wealth most Americans may have is from home ownership.

I don't think the Fed considers the stock market when it adjusts rates. It's inflation and employment figures that count the most by far.

And only 65 percent of stocks are owned by Americans. 35 percent are owned by foreigners so whatever benefits are realized go to them.

 

 

Yeah, so?

[bristolboy]

25 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

 

Yeah, so?

The stock market has practically nothing to do with what is going on in the actual economy. Or at least the past couple of decades it hasn't. It CAN affect the financial situation of most Americans however depending on how the FED adjusts interest rates, how pension funds project future returns, the "wealth effect", etc.

[lannarebirth]

23 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The stock market has practically nothing to do with what is going on in the actual economy. Or at least the past couple of decades it hasn't. It CAN affect the financial situation of most Americans however depending on how the FED adjusts interest rates, how pension funds project future returns, the "wealth effect", etc.

 

Correct. I'm pretty sure, that's exactly what I said. Anyhow, don't be a pesty a-hole or this version of you will go to ignore, just as the last one did.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Correct. I'm pretty sure, that's exactly what I said. Anyhow, don't be a pesty a-hole or this version of you will go to ignore, just as the last one did.

I'm really not trying to be pesty but I guess I didn't make it clear that the rise and fall of the stark market only affects the fortunes of a small minority of Americans whether directly or indirectly. Home equity is much more important than the stock market.

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I'm really not trying to be pesty but I guess I didn't make it clear that the rise and fall of the stark market only affects the fortunes of a small minority of Americans whether directly or indirectly. Home equity is much more important than the stock market.

 

It is not important to me to know that, but I'll take your word for it that it is true. It is certainaly true in my case. I don't invest in equities personally on the general principle that they are almost infinitely dilutable and the dividends, in most cases, are a mere pittance.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

The DJIA fell about 50% in the year preceding Obama's presidency. About 5 standard deviations from the norm. Valuations became out of whack given likely risks. Tell me how Obama had anything to do with that.

You want me to explain how the Obama administration made it clear that the government would do whatever it took to stop the economic freefall and restored confidence to investors, in spite of the Republicans idiotic calls for austerity?  No, figure that one out on your own.

 

Can you explain how the DJIA rose 8000 points above the bubble peak of the Bush administration during Obama's admistration? 

 

Getting back on topic, can you explain how the Trump "expansion" can be seen as anything but a continuation of the Obama recovery?

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

 

Fed Reserve chief Powell ,backs more rate hikes as economy growing 'considerably stronger'

 

 

"Federal reserve head Powell, painted a largely positive picture of the economy, which he said is expanding at an increasing pace and is being boosted by aggressive fiscal policy on Capitol Hill".

"Robust job gains, rising after-tax incomes, and optimism among households have lifted consumer spending in recent months. Investment by businesses has continued to grow at a healthy rate," he said. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/17/powell-backs-more-rate-hikes-as-economy-growing-considerably-stronger.html

Record low unemployment,anticipated to fall even lower!

The economy  was hurting prior to the election ,it's growing since the election .This is why most people voted for PT.To win again with jobs,jobs,jobs.

 

No, the economy was not hurting prior to the 2016 election.  It was doing fine.

 

Were you referring to the 2008 election?

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You want me to explain how the Obama administration made it clear that the government would do whatever it took to stop the economic freefall and restored confidence to investors, in spite of the Republicans idiotic calls for austerity?  No, figure that one out on your own.

 

Can you explain how the DJIA rose 8000 points above the bubble peak of the Bush administration during Obama's admistration? 

 

Getting back on topic, can you explain how the Trump "expansion" can be seen as anything but a continuation of the Obama recovery?

 

I enjoyed your other topic where you explained economics to bargirls and "pretties". Save me from what I am sure is a most trenchant lecture.

 

Quote

Can you explain how the DJIA rose 8000 points above the bubble peak of the Bush administration during Obama's admistration? 

 

Yes, I can, in a two anagrams  "ZIRP" and "QE".

 

I really don't see a "Trump Expansion", any more that I saw an "Obama Recovery" .

[heybruce]

32 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I enjoyed your other topic where you explained economics to bargirls and "pretties". Save me from what I am sure is a most trenchant lecture.

 

 

Yes, I can, in a two anagrams  "ZIRP" and "QE".

 

I really don't see a "Trump Expansion", any more that I saw an "Obama Recovery" .

Yes, ZIRP and QE, which allowed the US to recover from the crash before any other major economy.

 

To those confused by his economics and bargirls comment, don't be, he's making BS up.  He'll insist he isn't, but he won't provide a link showing otherwise.

Edited July 18, 2018 by heybruce

[Ramen087]

4 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

That's great.  Put your money where your mouth is and you're sure to be a big winner:

 

UK gamblers betting on Trump's impeachment before the end of the year

"President Trump is an odds-on favorite — for impeachment. Irish bookmaker Paddy Power says the betting has suddenly gone from 8/1 for the President’s ouster to 2/1, and the touts are saying it’ll happen sooner rather than later. The line on the President’s removal this year, rather than next, dropped from 12/1 to 2/1."

Worker wages drop while companies spend billions to boost stocks

"Worker pay in the second quarter dropped nearly one percent below its first-quarter level, according to the PayScale Index, one measure of worker pay. When accounting for inflation, the drop is even steeper. Year-over-year, rising prices have eaten up still-modest pay gains for many workers, with the result that real wages fell 1.4 percent from the prior year, according to PayScale. The drop was broad, with 80 percent of industries and two-thirds of metro areas affected."

If the 2020 presidential election were held today, Republican Donald Trump would fall to any Democrat in the potential field and lose out on a second term, according to a new poll released Wednesday morning.

 

That was two months ago, though.  I'm sure a similar poll would be different now, after his vaudevillian act at Helsinki.

*Polls are useless; the results of the election proved it.

*Bookmakers are only there to make lines that increase the number of bets.

*The real wage is determined by the supply and demand for skilled workers where employers have a need. The economy is showing real growth and eventually nearly all workers will benefit.  

[attrayant]

6 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

*Polls are useless; the results of the election proved it.

 

That just means you don't understand what polls are for.  Polls can say that there is a 90% chance of candidate A winning, and that means candidate B still has a 10% chance.  It does not mean candidate A will win, as you seem to think.

 

6 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

*Bookmakers are only there to make lines that increase the number of bets.

 

Are you implying they're lying just to get more people to bet?

 

6 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

*The real wage is determined by the supply and demand for skilled workers where employers have a need.

 

You can use whatever measuring stick you like.  The fact remains median household income is stagnant in the face of a trillion+ dollar deficit.  That's what is going to drive people to the polls.

 

6 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

The economy is showing real growth and eventually nearly all workers will benefit.  

 

Eventually?  I hope you're not holding your breath.

[Ramen087]

3 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

That just means you don't understand what polls are for.  Polls can say that there is a 90% chance of candidate A winning, and that means candidate B still has a 10% chance.  It does not mean candidate A will win, as you seem to think.

 

Are you implying they're lying just to get more people to bet?

 

You can use whatever measuring stick you like.  The fact remains median household income is stagnant in the face of a trillion+ dollar deficit.  That's what is going to drive people to the polls.

 

Eventually?  I hope you're not holding your breath.

Your inference on pills is inaccurate, as are the polls themselves. They don't reflect reality. Bookmakers want as many bets to be placed as possible, on both sides of course.  Your household statistic isn't sn accurate measure of the broad U.S. economy. People in the middle class are recovering slower, but they will continue to benefit, and in increasing numbers.  This recovery has accelerated in the past 20 months.  It's Donald's time. Midterms will give a preview. Finito...have a good one. Bye.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

Your inference on pills is inaccurate, as are the polls themselves. They don't reflect reality. Bookmakers want as many bets to be placed as possible, on both sides of course.  Your household statistic isn't sn accurate measure of the broad U.S. economy. People in the middle class are recovering slower, but they will continue to benefit, and in increasing numbers.  This recovery has accelerated in the past 20 months.  It's Donald's time. Midterms will give a preview. Finito...have a good one. Bye.

The polls on average were off by about 1 percent in the national election in terms of the popular vote. Any one poll by itself can be quite off. But aggregators are very acurate. Such as fivethirtyeight.com. They gave Trump a 28 percent chance of winning. Right now it shows him and the Republicans way behind.

 

As for the economy. One of the major tax cut promises was the businesses would increase investment. They haven't. Not only haven't they, they don't plan to either for the most part. Business owners have been queried about their plans for the future. Overwhelmingly no plans to increase investment.

 

Liberals predicted that the increased funds made available to corporations by tax cuts would go overwhelmingly to stock buybacks. The same as happened during the Bush adminstration. Those damned liberals turned out to be exactly right.

[attrayant]

10 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

Your inference on pills is inaccurate, as are the polls themselves. They don't reflect reality.

 

You continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding about polls.  If they didn't reflect reality, marketing firms wouldn't be spending tens of thousands of dollars to conduct them.  They even come with confidence factors and margins of error - that means we know how likely the poll is to be accurate.  Statistics isn't voodoo - it's a verifiable science. 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

People in the middle class are recovering slower, but they will continue to benefit, and in increasing numbers.  This recovery has accelerated in the past 20 months.  It's Donald's time. Midterms will give a preview. Finito...have a good one. Bye.

 

Supposing, for the sake of argument, that what you say is true.  Why then, is Trump so deeply unpopular at a time when your economic projection suggests that people should be at least satisfied, and at a time when the unemployment rate is at an all time low?

 

It’s the economy, stupid? Not for Trump.

 

"Only one president with an unemployment rate as low as what it is under Trump was more unpopular: Harry S. Truman in the early 1950s. And the average approval rating for a president with an unemployment rate 4.3 percent or lower over the entire span was more than 55 percent. So Trump's approval rating is 20 percentage points lower than the average for a president with his unemployment rate."

 

 

[Ramen087]

11 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

You continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding about polls.  If they didn't reflect reality, marketing firms wouldn't be spending tens of thousands of dollars to conduct them.  They even come with confidence factors and margins of error - that means we know how likely the poll is to be accurate.  Statistics isn't voodoo - it's a verifiable science. 

 

 

 

Supposing, for the sake of argument, that what you say is true.  Why then, is Trump so deeply unpopular at a time when your economic projection suggests that people should be at least satisfied, and at a time when the unemployment rate is at an all time low?

 

It’s the economy, stupid? Not for Trump.

 

"Only one president with an unemployment rate as low as what it is under Trump was more unpopular: Harry S. Truman in the early 1950s. And the average approval rating for a president with an unemployment rate 4.3 percent or lower over the entire span was more than 55 percent. So Trump's approval rating is 20 percentage points lower than the average for a president with his unemployment rate."

 

 

Polls... Are... Worthless...    Finito. Goodbye.

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

Polls... Are... Worthless...    Finito. Goodbye.

How many think Polls are worthless? Lets take a poll.

[Credo]

UK gamblers betting on Trump's impeachment before the end of the year

President Trump is an odds-on favorite — for impeachment.

Irish bookmaker Paddy Power says the betting has suddenly gone from 8/1 for the President’s ouster to 2/1, and the touts are saying it’ll happen sooner rather than later.

The line on the President’s removal this year, rather than next, dropped from 12/1 to 2/1.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-bookmakers-gamblers-trump-impeachment-20180717-story.html

[attrayant]

5 hours ago, Ramen087 said:

Polls... Are... Worthless... 

 

Nope.  Your understanding of polls, and basic statistics too, is worthless.  Your inability to understand a process reflects on you, not on the process.

 

Polls Are Still As Accurate As They Were 75 Years Ago

 

"Researchers looked at 30,000 voter polls conducted for 351 general elections in 45 nations over a span of 75 years.

 

We find that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the recent performance of polls has not been outside the ordinary,” authors Will Jennings of the University of Southampton and Christopher Wlezien of the University of Texas at Austin write in the study, published this week in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. “Ultimately, although the polling industry faces a range of substantial challenges, we find no evidence to support the claims of a crisis in the accuracy of polling.”

[Slip]

drip... drip... drip...

 

https://hillreporter.com/indictment-of-russian-spy-butina-points-to-russias-selection-of-tillerson-3948

[Jingthing]

KOMPROMAT.

 

It's a real thing and "trump" is showing tell tale signs of it.

 

Not sure how any decent American can find this acceptable.

 

 

 

"Putin invite sends Washington into Russian twilight zone

...

 

"Before the Helsinki summit, I was not prepared to go to the darkest corner in the room and say there is kompromat -- there is compromising information -- on Donald Trump," Hall said.

 

"After ... I saw Donald Trump treat (Putin) in a fashion that is just inexplicable, the only conclusion that I can come to is ... I think there is information and data out there that implies there is indeed compromising information that Vladimir Putin has on Donald Trump. Why else would he treat him that way?"

 

 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/20/politics/president-trump-putin-visit-washington-white-house/index.html

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Aj Mick]

On 7/19/2018 at 8:00 AM, Credo said:

UK gamblers betting on Trump's impeachment before the end of the year

President Trump is an odds-on favorite — for impeachment.

Irish bookmaker Paddy Power says the betting has suddenly gone from 8/1 for the President’s ouster to 2/1, and the touts are saying it’ll happen sooner rather than later.

The line on the President’s removal this year, rather than next, dropped from 12/1 to 2/1.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-bookmakers-gamblers-trump-impeachment-20180717-story.html

Wouldn't bet on impeachment, but doubt that he will see out a full term. Methinks The Donald will resign of his own volition, like Nixon did, when it appears impeachment is imminent..... possibly in the first half of 2019. 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Aj Mick

[bristolboy]

On 1/28/2018 at 1:50 PM, Luckysilk said:

 

 

The economy is doing well and Supreme Court choices to date are making America great again.

 

 

If it's true American workers have too many rights and corporations too little, then your evaluation of Trump's Supreme Court choices is spot on.

Edited July 20, 2018 by bristolboy

[bushdoctor]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/07/20/gallup-poll-russian-meddling-near-the-bottom-of-american-concerns-immigration-at-the-top

[wayned]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Supreme Court choices to date are making America great again.

If Kavanaugh is confirmed and he doesn't recuse himself from any cases brought before the court involving the Trump administration and the Mueller investigation, IMHO, the Supreme Court will just  be a puppet of the Trump political machine.  I also think that Gorsuch should also recuse himself for the above reasons. Otherwise the fox will be in charge of the hen house!

[Scott]

Inflammatory post reported and removed.

 

[mtls2005]

I actually would like to see him finish is one and only term, if only so he can suffer through a few more years of shame and indignity.

 

Now I think it's even money he takes his own life rather than suffer the shame. It wouldn't be a shocker given the manner in which is older brother Fred Jr. died.

 

 

[AYJAYDEE]

4 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

I actually would like to see him finish is one and only term, if only so he can suffer through a few more years of shame and indignity.

 

Now I think it's even money he takes his own life rather than suffer the shame. It wouldn't be a shocker given the manner in which is older brother Fred Jr. died.

 

 

he's gonna have a coronary soon enough