Trump seems to be doing well so far...

Status
Not open for further replies.
"It is simply a fact that since World War II, Democratic presidents have seen 24.4 million more jobs created on their watch—an average of 78.6% more jobs created per year of Democratic administrations—than have Republican presidents. Ditto real GDP growth, 44% higher under Democratic presidents. On the flip side, unemployment has been 18% higher under GOP presidents."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...does-better-under-the-democrats/#4fa4da678684


Trump seems to be doing well so far...


http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/which-party-is-better-for-the-economy.php

"The data show that, since World War II, the economy has performed substantially better under Democratic presidents. On average, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP has grown about 1.6 times faster under Democrats than under Republicans. While the strong performance under Presidents Truman, Kennedy and Johnson certainly contributes to this gap, the starting point does not matter: GDP has grown faster under Democrats regardless of whether the analysis begins with President Truman, President Kennedy or President Reagan."

Trump seems to be doing well so far...


Trump seems to be doing well so far...


Broken link removed

"It may surprise those who think of the Republicans as “the party of business,” but in fact the Democrats have in general been better for the dollar, better for the US economy, and even better for the stock market than the Republicans have been."

Trump seems to be doing well so far...


https://www.nasdaq.com/article/dollar-us-economy-stocks-they-all-do-better-under-democrats-cm629447


Forbes? The US Senate? The NASDAQ? Fake news??

Uhhhhh... I think not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
uhhhhh... I think not.

Look at clinton's numbers... You know that he caused the bank debacle of W's administration, right? According to your charts, Clinton is awesome. The truth is that his presidency occured durring the monetization of the internet. Prior to his administration, the internet was developing and somewhat in it's infancy as a commercial entity. Are you proposing that since Al Gore created the internet, that clinton should get credit for that?... Does that make the "internet bump" to the economy a "democratic" contribution?

Seriously, Clinton brought us to the highest point economically and then pushed us off the cliff. George W is given the blame by the uniformed... look it up. Rather than argue with very politically polarized minds, I like to tell people to watch the documentary, "inside job". It exposes the real stories and attitudes of the whole political establishment, the media, and the financial institutions. You'll hold your head as you watch because your brain will hurt. Then you can look at your statistical charts again and tell yourself if they tell the story you seem to think they do.
 
Not sure ‘bout all this above , just got to wonder when I bored , how come el Presidente Trump has not opened up his financials , is there something to hide ?
 
Not sure ‘bout all this above , just got to wonder when I bored , how come el Presidente Trump has not opened up his financials , is there something to hide ?

Seriously Craig, you're playing the "guilty without proven innocent card"? As I said in my first statement in this thread, I'm not going to be trump's defender on here. Some of you very politically polarized people here posting will smell "shit" or "roses", depending on WHO is being discussed, and not discuss the merits of those people's policies with factual arguments.

The fact that you're "not sure" about what I wrote means you should watch the documentary I referenced. It's not politically biased to either party. As I said, You'll hold your head and wonder WTF??? The fact that Clinton's policies caused the bank collapse under George W is indisputable, but of course that's not a widely disseminated fact by the popular media. Nor is it something the rank and file democrats really believe either, because it upsets the "statistical chart" that proves how awesome Clinton did economically.

The glass-stengal act... look it up
 
Like I mentioned , “when I’m bored” .... right now in my Country the ruling Liberals are embroiled in a he said/she said thing .... after awhile all politics is just grey noise .... I got steering stem bearings to replace as Spring is on way here finally .... way more important , eh ? ..... I take no sides in any Country’s politics , even my own ... in my life I have seen little change no matter who was in power , only constant has been rich got richer poor got poorer .... bikes are way more interesting with little fake news to deal with , and usually easy to disprove .......
 
You have time to post your opinions in this thread too many times for me to count, but not the time to check out some pretty interesting and informative information. It's a documentary that has nothing to do with Trump, other than the fact that trump was an outsider to politics at the time of this documentary. You should watch the documentary one evening with a beer in one hand, and leave the other hand free to hold onto your head periodically as the plot unfolds. I'm not saying this as an advocate of any ideology because none are spared in this documentary. I think most people should see it, because it truly shows that a politicians first priority is to advance his career, not serve the people.

The fact that you are interested in examining Trump's taxes, but not interested in this says a lot about how you have formed your opinion. You probably aren't as interested in Obama's college grades and how they got him into Harvard, nor how an obviously white Elizabeth Warren pretended to be native american to claim minority status to give herself an edge in job applications.

Seeing the flaws in your enemies whether real or imagined is easy. Seeing flaws amongst those you share ideological beliefs with, seems impossible for many people.

I know,... you don't have the time for that...
 
<Seeing flaws amongst those you share ideological beliefs with, seems impossible for many people.>

Might I say that seeing our own flaws is at least possible but doing much about it is nearly impossible for most of us including myself!
Just a human shortcoming...
 
I sure do have lots of shortcoming .... and flaws ..... I have no interest in looking at DT financials , I mentioned I was interested in why he is not keen on releasing them .... didn’t realize I had posted here so much , going to have a count , I guess ...
 
Yup , you are right on .... looks like I have wasted 25 posts on his thread , guess I should smarten up ! .... must be a record of some sort for me , especially when it is none of my business .... sorry
 
Look at clinton's numbers... You know that he caused the bank debacle of W's administration, right? According to your charts, Clinton is awesome. The truth is that his presidency occured durring the monetization of the internet. Prior to his administration, the internet was developing and somewhat in it's infancy as a commercial entity. Are you proposing that since Al Gore created the internet, that clinton should get credit for that?... Does that make the "internet bump" to the economy a "democratic" contribution?

Seriously, Clinton brought us to the highest point economically and then pushed us off the cliff. George W is given the blame by the uniformed... look it up. Rather than argue with very politically polarized minds, I like to tell people to watch the documentary, "inside job". It exposes the real stories and attitudes of the whole political establishment, the media, and the financial institutions. You'll hold your head as you watch because your brain will hurt. Then you can look at your statistical charts again and tell yourself if they tell the story you seem to think they do.

First, these are not my charts. They were quoted from Forbes, the US Senate and NASDAQ.

Make no mistake, Clinton is/was no angel.

And Al Gore did not create the internet.

However, they also were not Neoliberals, and that implies they have a different economic model from many modern Republicans.

Will check out the doco you mention. Speaking of documentaries, you should watch The Shock Doctrine.

The film traces the doctrine’s beginnings in the radical theories of Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago, and its subsequent implementation over the past forty years, in countries and situations as disparate as Pinochet’s Chile, Yeltsin’s Russia, Thatcher’s Britain, and most recently the neo-con invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It will expose the darker side of Friedman’s ideology, which was so unpopular it could only be implemented through the use of torture and repression.

The film expands on the book’s arguments, showing that the need for a counter-narrative to Friedman’s theories – particularly in the recent global financial crisis – is more urgent than ever. As Donald Rumsfeld has said, “Milton Friedman is the embodiment of the truth that ideas have consequences’.

 
Last edited:
Craig,.. don't apologize to me. I'm just pointing out that you had enough time to comment when you were 'dumping' on someone you obviously don't like. (many agree with that dislike too) Then you claimed that you didn't have the time and weren't all that interested in some mindblowing information about ALL of these political idiots...



Gortnipper, thanks I'll put that on my list! I also wanted to see the movie "Vice" which is the movie made about Dick Cheney, who was nicknamed Darth Vader long before this movie was made.

Statistics can be misleading. In regards to Clinton, I'm not talking about his character flaws (sexually). The statistics you posted show that he kicked ass economically, but in truth he built a house of cards with the boom he created which came tumbling down during bush's administration. If we only use your statistics, we don't show that truth.

I don't like to preach unless someone is in front of me. I'd rather give them stuff to look up so they can read some mind boggling stuff and decide if they want to see more of the story. I always tell people to look up Franklin Raines (wiki works for that) He was clinton's guy at Fanny Mae, who cooked the books so he could get his "drum roll" 27 million dollar bonus for meeting the goals of that institution. Of course he falsified the books to get that bonus, and returned an "undisclosed amount" in a deal with the justice department to mitigate any prosecution... People always say how the economy took off under clinton, which it did because he smartly made deals with republicans which encouraged economic optimism. Sadly, he had good intentions with the mistakes that he made, but the disaster that followed was pretty intense. (like I said, see the movie)

The thing I hate about this thread is that Nigel started it as a "Wow, look at the US economy bump from Trump's election" and the haters came out of the woodwork with their inuendo. I'm not even saying Trump will be good or bad once his administration is said and done. I am saying that there's a huge resistance to some of the things he proposes, by many of the same people who proposed similar things in the past. IMO, neither the republicans, nor the democrats want him in office because he's not part of the shell game they have going with each of their money making political machines. The outcomes for the american people are secondary now in both parties. Trump, whether good or bad, represents their biggest nightmare,... An outsider ruining their shell game, so the legal assault on him is very much a strategy to remove him, whether he deserves that or not. The sad thing is these politicians aren't doing it for the american people, they are doing it because if his administration is good for the american people, then it sets a presidence that Ivy league lawyers are probably the worst people to have running the country...
 
Last edited:
Deciding whether one side or the other produces better economic numbers is a fool's errand - impossible to untangle because of the lag time between action and result. Not to mention the fact that the books are cooked continuously by both sides. Being in control of the rules, establishment interests redefine the inputs and the outputs, at will. Fake economics.

For example, in the U.S., "Gross Domestic Product" is defined to INCLUDE government spending AND the earnings of foreigners who reside in the U.S. but typically send some of their earnings home. So . . . . any increase in government spending, or in the earnings of resident foreigners, ipso facto, is an "increase" in the economy. Really? Yes, according to the rules, really.

Similarly, "unemployment" has been periodically redefined ever since the creation of the US Dept of Labor in the 1950s. Perpetual students aren't unemployed? Yep. People on unemployment too long aren't unemployed? Yep. People unemployed too long aren't unemployed? Yep, we are told that they "dropped out of the labor force" and no longer count.

Until 1991, we in the U.S. used "Gross National Product," or GNP, not GDP, to describe the size or change in our economy.

The political establishment, by adding both government spending and the earnings of resident foreigners to our economy, were able to claim fake "growth in the economy."

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030415/what-functional-difference-between-gdp-and-gnp.asp
 
All I know is, the best economy I experienced in my 50-year working life was when Bill Clinton was President and when W got elected, the whole world's economy nearly went over a cliff, only to be brought back from the near-dead when Obama was President.

The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was the worst thing Clinton did and W's subsequent "look the other way" attitude toward the big banks had much to do with the Crash of the 80's, but Republicans (Sen. Phil Gramm, the Texas Turtle, and Bush toadie mainly) were highly complicit. Obama was then handed a s#!t sandwich that took another two years to recover from.

Trump inherited a strong economy and has somehow managed not to f@^k it up too badly despite his general ineptitude. The tax giveaway to the wealthy and large corporations is the worst thing he's been able to institute. Instead of being used for R&D, training, new plants, equipment and facilities (read JOBS), most of the money went for stock buybacks to enrich the stockholders and corporate board members and has done squat for the rest of us.
 
that's a laughable comment Danno. You are woefully misinformed. Bush's administration accepted the data from clinton's administration and continued the clinton policies because the false date indicated Fanny Mae was a successful. As I've said 5 times to Craig, educate yourself about what happened, instead of blaming the people you dislike, or in your case blaming your ideological enemies..

Edited to add: Nobody likes to be told that they've got the story wrong. That's why I recommend watching the documentary I mentioned instead of lecturing here in the forum. The documentary doesn't say that anyone is a "bad person". Instead it documents the crisis without prejudice. It's pretty mind boggling and sobering to watch. There are clearly good intended mistakes, and obvious special interests being served by policy makers. I like it because it's less of a hit piece on any ideological group and more of an expose' on how politics works in this country.
 
Last edited:
I have heard the same "house of cards" theory about Obama's policies and have been hearing the same political stories as long as I can remember; The poor Republicans fix everything up to work well and get thrown out, The Democrats come in, take the credit and proceed to screw everything up. When they subsequently get thrown out, the poor Republicans (who never get any credit) come in and save the day, only to get tossed out again so the Democrats can come in and take another free ride. This explains why, I suppose, that in my lifetime and the immediate era proceeding it, that everything ever done to benefit working Americans was thought of and instituted by Democrats, fought tooth-and-nail by Republicans as bad for business in a never-ending circle.

The Republican-backed policies that Clinton went along with, such as the aforementioned repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, freed up the big banks to steamroll the small-town banks. This sort of "let the mice mind the cheese" attitude led to the real "house of cards", derivatives, basically borrowing money on borrowed money, a paper-pushing industry with no products and nothing accomplished other than to call something by a name that didn't describe what it really was: theft. Trillions of dollars worth. When Bush was in charge.

You may have forgotten how deeply W's older brother was embroiled in the S&L scandal. Another serious money-taking paid for by ......
wait for it.....

You got it, TAXPAYERS! Now we have another Republican at the helm and thanks to his toadies in Congress, many of who were sent home or had already planned their golden parachute acts, the folks at the very very top of the food chain were given a giant bonus paid for by......

Three guesses first two don't count
 
I guess if Obama hadn't taxed those poor wealthy people so heavily, Trump wouldn't have had to give then such a fat paycheck. That's the ticket, blame the last guy. Now if we could only find a way to blame porn star screwing, shady business deals and getting propped up out of certain bankruptcy by the Russians on Obama.
 
Again, you should watch the documentary, so you'll learn something.

I could preach to you here individual aspects of the bank collapse story, but you'ld start whining in a hyperbolic manner again or start calling politicians who you don't like more insulting names. It's not a great strategy for sounding intelligent and well informed, although it sounds blustery as if you are emphasisizing some important point, when in fact, you're not.

Clinton's booming economy was a house of cards. I never heard anyone say that about Obama's economy because it wasn't a boom in any way, so how could it collapse... Again, you seem very interested in this stuff, so you should watch the documentary, "Inside Job". I've heard that, "The Big Short" is also a good documentary about this subject too, but I've never seen that one... OR you could just continue on rambling and calling people names.
 
It really don't matter who is in or which party is running the country, they make promises they don't keep, the poor working class always lose out they promise tax cuts but seems to be the rich that get that and if the working class do get tax cuts or wage rises they seem to find another way of getting all that back with high cost to our living expenses or add taxes on things that we never been taxed on before, its about time people woke up to whats happening, but who do you vote in as both sides seem to be doing the same thing once they get in power and the poor working class will keep suffering, I am no longer working because of GOVERMENT fu.k ups and trying to live on my own supa till I can get the old age pension and even then the GOV wants you to work 16 hours a week to get that which we have worked our lives for, when will it end and I am sure when our next election happens and thats not to far off I think a lot more independents are going to get voted in because everyone is sick of all the BS.
So really does Trump really care as well does the other side it seems to me its more about power than whats good fot the US of A or people who are stuggling to servive.
Here in Aussie land the cost of just living has exploded, buying a house is getting beyond peoples reach unless your rich, fuel prices keep going up we are taxed heaverly on that as well GST on it as well so the Gov double dips on fuel cost and it will always get worst never better.

Ashley
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top