Jump to content

America Loves Trump. When Will Shit Hole Blacks Figure It Out?


stevenkesslar
 Share

This topic is 1358 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Well, it's a New Year. And President Unity really hit his stride. For the first time since last April, there are as many people who approve of him as disapprove of him: 49/49.

 

See, all it took was talking as if all he actually wanted to do was unify us, and of course help people who live in shit holes and Hell:

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history

 

Now, there are Shit Hole Blacks like Maxine Waters and Jay Z who simply have not gotten the message. So one wonders, when will Shit Hole Blacks catch up with the rest of us, and figure out that President Unity is a swell guy?

 

It is absolutely disrespectful for Shit Hole Blacks to disrespect President Unity when he takes credit for helping Shit Hole Blacks after he tells them that they live in Hell. You would think the very least these denizens of Hell could do is try to be the least bit patriotic, compassionate, and understanding of the great challenges President Unity faces, what with having to govern idiots like Jay Z who come from Hell and various other shit holes.

 

http://blackchristiannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/48AB144000000578-0-image-a-TrumpvsJayz-2_1517150766235-550x330.jpg

 

Clearly, most Americans (and frankly, I'm not sure that Shit Hole Blacks and Blacks From Hell should be considered Americans, at least not your patriotic MAGA type Americans), are willing to open their heart to President Unity. In his brief tenure President Unity has made incredible strides lifting the economic fortunes of all Americans, replacing Shit Hole Obamacare with insurance that is better and more affordable for all, and creating an environment of peace, unity, and cooperation.

 

The tax cuts are a perfect example of President Unity's policies that will lift the fortunes of even the stupidest and most shitholish Blacks, despite even their disrespect and lack of patriotism - the same disrespect we see all the time when Shithole Blacks run from police officers who simply want to shoot them a few times in the back. When will these people learn?

 

Racist Shithole Blacks like Maxine Waters would rather worship at the altar of african shithole barack hussein obama even though he did nothing - nothing - nothing for them. I repeat, he did nothing for them. Obamacare was like a cancer inflicted on millions of Americans that President Unity has fought mightily to cure them of. And as President Unity just tried to get through to Jay Z, we can thank President Unity for the lowest Black unemployment ever.

 

Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American

 

latest_numbers_LNS14000006_2008_2018_all_period_M01_data.gif

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006

 

If you look at the data, even idiots from shit holes ought to be able to figure this one out.

 

In barack hussein obama's first year in office, from Jan. 2009 to Jan. 2010, Black unemployment rose from 12.7 percent to 16.5 percent. You see my point? Now some Shithole Blacks defending president shithole will tell you that the first year is to blame on what happened before obama was president. He inherited a mess.

 

Bullshit! The Republicans are right. The shithole obama democrats just threw useless budget-busting stimulus at these shit holes and it did nothing - nothing - nothing other than make things worse. obama is fully to blame for the train wreck in his first year. 99.7 % of economists agree, just like 99.7 % of scientists understand that truly climate change is a Chinese hoax. Why can't people just agree that President Unity is trying to unify us - with TRUTH???!!!

 

That is why we can thank President Unity for instead throwing budget-busting tax cuts at millionaires and billionaires, which is well known as the true and effective way to help shit hole Blacks get jobs. In fact, the tax cuts are probably why Black unemployment is now lower than ever. That is just how smart and effective President Unity is!

 

And if you don't believe me, look at the equivalent numbers for Trump's first year. When he came into office, after the disaster of eight years of shithole president barack hussein obama, Black unemployment was an outrageous 7.8 percent in January 2017. Now, by January 2018, thanks to tax cuts and the incredible efforts of President Unity, Black unemployment has fallen to 7.7 percent in January 2019.

 

Clearly, President Unity is right, and Jay Z needs to stop with his disrespect. Black unemployment fell despite all the horrors of barack hell hussein obama for one reason and one reason only - the superior policies of President Unity.

 

And no doubt by January 2019 and January 2020 Black unemployment will fall lower still. Just watch. And maybe by January 2021 even Jay Z will figure it out and he will be rapping the truth at President Unity's second inaugural address.

Edited by stevenkesslar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, it's a New Year. And President Unity really hit his stride. For the first time since last April, there are as many people who approve of him as disapprove of him: 49/49.

Gee, one reliably tilted Republican poll claims Tie! and suddenly the Blue Wave is over. Forget the 13 other most recent polls that have Trump in the toilet.

 

Of course, some liberals reliably spout Bullshit from the right. (It has the effect of depressing the left, which makes the right happy, and this gets transformed into more polling shifts.) Pity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what is going to happen to black unemployment when health care employment is suddenly depleted because of cuts in the ACA. There are huge numbers of black workers (as well as immigrants and yes, white Americans) working in that sector of employment. Besides doctors and nurses, it also includes nurses' aides and home health care workers. They will be the first to go because they will probably be seen as less necessary. And, of course, that will lead to a huge problem because workers who have family members who are being taken care of my home health care workers will have to leave their jobs because they will not be able to afford the remaining health care workers and will have to quit their jobs to care for their loved ones. Welcome to the huge unemployment circle.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Make America Sane Again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love my $1.50 per week tax windfall (eventhough it's not even enough to buy a new MAC lipstick) Thank you President Unity.... or should I say President GOD ?

 

You should put it on a go-go boy underwear.

 

Well, it's a New Year. And President Unity really hit his stride. For the first time since last April, there are as many people who approve of him as disapprove of him: 49/49.

 

See, all it took was talking as if all he actually wanted to do was unify us, and of course help people who live in shit holes and Hell:

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history

 

Now, there are Shit Hole Blacks like Maxine Waters and Jay Z who simply have not gotten the message. So one wonders, when will Shit Hole Blacks catch up with the rest of us, and figure out that President Unity is a swell guy?

 

It is absolutely disrespectful for Shit Hole Blacks to disrespect President Unity when he takes credit for helping Shit Hole Blacks after he tells them that they live in Hell. You would think the very least these denizens of Hell could do is try to be the least bit patriotic, compassionate, and understanding of the great challenges President Unity faces, what with having to govern idiots like Jay Z who come from Hell and various other shit holes.

 

http://blackchristiannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/48AB144000000578-0-image-a-TrumpvsJayz-2_1517150766235-550x330.jpg

 

Clearly, most Americans (and frankly, I'm not sure that Shit Hole Blacks and Blacks From Hell should be considered Americans, at least not your patriotic MAGA type Americans), are willing to open their heart to President Unity. In his brief tenure President Unity has made incredible strides lifting the economic fortunes of all Americans, replacing Shit Hole Obamacare with insurance that is better and more affordable for all, and creating an environment of peace, unity, and cooperation.

 

The tax cuts are a perfect example of President Unity's policies that will lift the fortunes of even the stupidest and most shitholish Blacks, despite even their disrespect and lack of patriotism - the same disrespect we see all the time when Shithole Blacks run from police officers who simply want to shoot them a few times in the back. When will these people learn?

 

Racist Shithole Blacks like Maxine Waters would rather worship at the altar of african shithole barack hussein obama even though he did nothing - nothing - nothing for them. I repeat, he did nothing for them. Obamacare was like a cancer inflicted on millions of Americans that President Unity has fought mightily to cure them of. And as President Unity just tried to get through to Jay Z, we can thank President Unity for the lowest Black unemployment ever.

 

Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American

 

latest_numbers_LNS14000006_2008_2018_all_period_M01_data.gif

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006

 

If you look at the data, even idiots from shit holes ought to be able to figure this one out.

 

In barack hussein obama's first year in office, from Jan. 2009 to Jan. 2010, Black unemployment rose from 12.7 percent to 16.5 percent. You see my point? Now some Shithole Blacks defending president shithole will tell you that the first year is to blame on what happened before obama was president. He inherited a mess.

 

Bullshit! The Republicans are right. The shithole obama democrats just threw useless budget-busting stimulus at these shit holes and it did nothing - nothing - nothing other than make things worse. obama is fully to blame for the train wreck in his first year. 99.7 % of economists agree, just like 99.7 % of scientists understand that truly climate change is a Chinese hoax. Why can't people just agree that President Unity is trying to unify us - with TRUTH???!!!

 

That is why we can thank President Unity for instead throwing budget-busting tax cuts at millionaires and billionaires, which is well known as the true and effective way to help shit hole Blacks get jobs. In fact, the tax cuts are probably why Black unemployment is now lower than ever. That is just how smart and effective President Unity is!

 

And if you don't believe me, look at the equivalent numbers for Trump's first year. When he came into office, after the disaster of eight years of shithole president barack hussein obama, Black unemployment was an outrageous 7.8 percent in January 2017. Now, by January 2018, thanks to tax cuts and the incredible efforts of President Unity, Black unemployment has fallen to 7.7 percent in January 2019.

 

Clearly, President Unity is right, and Jay Z needs to stop with his disrespect. Black unemployment fell despite all the horrors of barack hell hussein obama for one reason and one reason only - the superior policies of President Unity.

 

And no doubt by January 2019 and January 2020 Black unemployment will fall lower still. Just watch. And maybe by January 2021 even Jay Z will figure it out and he will be rapping the truth at President Unity's second inaugural address.

 

Not only that... Obama saved the country from another great depression!

Liberal, born and raised in Maryland, proud member of pink pistols!

Ignore list: WilliamM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what is going to happen to black unemployment when health care employment is suddenly depleted because of cuts in the ACA. There are huge numbers of black workers (as well as immigrants and yes, white Americans) working in that sector of employment. Besides doctors and nurses, it also includes nurses' aides and home health care workers. They will be the first to go because they will probably be seen as less necessary. And, of course, that will lead to a huge problem because workers who have family members who are being taken care of my home health care workers will have to leave their jobs because they will not be able to afford the remaining health care workers and will have to quit their jobs to care for their loved ones. Welcome to the huge unemployment circle.

 

Here's another thing. A statement, and a question.

 

The question first: does anybody really understand what impact Obamacare has on poverty rates, or on income in general?

 

Now here's the statement. One of Sean Hannity's favorite lines through the 2016 campaign was to go after Obama and the Obama economy for resulting in too much Black poverty. Of course, now all of a sudden we live in a different world, in which Black unemployment and Black poverty I guess are magically no longer problems.

 

There's only two times in my life that overall poverty almost got as low as a single digit: once at the end of the 60's War on Poverty, and once at the end of Clinton's Presidency, when I would argue he fought an undeclared Second War on Poverty. During the first (declared) War, poverty hit a low point in Nixon's first term, in part because by today's standard he was a liberal who continued much of LBJ's Great Society programs. My conclusion is that if you want to reduce poverty, it makes sense to have a War on Poverty. And when we have actually done that, it has actually worked.

 

2017-FAQ3-Fig2.png

 

While Obama may have wanted to fundamentally alter the terms of the economy that we've had since Reagan, he didn't. Part of the impact Bernie Sanders may still have - it's way too early to tell - is that his populist campaign, and Trump's populist campaign for that matter, may have been an early indicator that the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Obama economy simply left too many poor and working class people behind. I would never argue that Obama's strong point was his sustained attack on poverty. In part, in his defense, he simply didn't have the votes during much of his Presidency to do what LBJ or even Bill Clinton did.

 

Having said that, if Obama had a unique anti-poverty program, it was and still is Obamacare. And that's a mushy way to say it, because technically the Obamacare insurance markets are specifically for people who are not poor and therefore don't qualify for Medicaid, based on being poor. On top of that, part of Obamacare was the expansion of Medicaid to reach a group of people who are not poor, but are close to being poor - at or below 138 % of poverty - at least in the states that took the expansion.

 

At some point, though, it struck me that the Obamacare tax credits amount to a substantial but unmeasured increase in the effective income of many individuals and families who are just above the poverty level. This is a breakdown of how those tax credits work, by state:

 

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/average-monthly-advance-premium-tax-credit-aptc/?

currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

 

In general, I think the math works this way: the closer to poverty you are, the bigger the tax credit you get. The average tax credit in the US last year was $371 a month, or over $4000 a year. If you are a single person living in California and you make double the poverty level for one person, that's about $25,000 a year. So I think that tax credit would amount to an effective 15 % or so increase in your income level - if you view it in terms of what you are actually able to buy. Because there are multiple factors that determine the size of the credits - location, income, family size - I'm not sure I've ever seen anything that clearly sets out what impact Obamacare has had on family income, or poverty.

 

In one sense you can say it has had zero impact on income or poverty, because the advance tax credits go to insurance companies in the form of a subsidy that makes insurance affordable. So it's not income at all, and it's not taxed on income. It's always been funny that the Republicans, who generally are for what Big Business wants, loved to attack these subsidies as handouts to insurance companies, even though they go to insurance companies so that people living near poverty don't have to pay insurance premiums they otherwise couldn't afford.

 

What we do know is that millions of people now can afford to buy health insurance, and do, because of these subsidies. Not surprisingly, the closer you are to being poor, the more you need the subsidies, and the more likely you are to use them. The people least likely to use them - who are likely the ones that might prefer to see the individual mandate go - are the ones near 400 % of poverty who get very little subsidy. In California that's about $50,000 for a single person. My guess is many of those people might feel they deserve a subsidy too. But I get that they are in between a rocket and a hard place. The insurance sure ain't cheap, and they are the ones who have to pay for almost all of it out of their own pocket. Getting rid of the mandate clears the deck for something the Sanderscrats might come up with (like the dreaded single payer) if the Sanderscrats actually can figure out how to win, and govern.

 

My main point is that if Collins or Murkowski or McCain (or a Democrat) had added that one extra vote to repeal the core of Obamacare - which in my mind, is NOT the individual mandate - it would have a huge negative impact on the incomes and perhaps health of lower-income Americans. Which is probably why many Republicans were glad to see Obamacare (mostly) stay.

 

But I'll end by repeating my question: is this a correct understanding of how Obamacare impacts income and poverty for people? Because it does seem like it in effect adds to millions of people's incomes, even though it does not show up the same way it would if they, for example, got a $1000 bonus or a 3 % pay raise.

Edited by stevenkesslar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another thing. A statement, and a question.

 

The question first: does anybody really understand what impact Obamacare has on poverty rates, or on income in general?

 

Now here's the statement. One of Sean Hannity's favorite lines through the 2016 campaign was to go after Obama and the Obama economy for resulting in too much Black poverty. Of course, now all of a sudden we live in a different world, in which Black unemployment and Black poverty I guess are magically no longer problems.

 

There's only two times in my life that overall poverty almost got as low as a single digit: once at the end of the 60's War on Poverty, and once at the end of Clinton's Presidency, when I would argue he fought an undeclared Second War on Poverty. During the first (declared) War, poverty hit a low point in Nixon's first term, in part because by today's standard he was a liberal who continued much of LBJ's Great Society programs. My conclusion is that if you want to reduce poverty, it makes sense to have a War on Poverty. And when we have actually done that, it has actually worked.

 

2017-FAQ3-Fig2.png

 

While Obama may have wanted to fundamentally alter the terms of the economy that we've had since Reagan, he didn't. Part of the impact Bernie Sanders may still have - it's way too early to tell - is that his populist campaign, and Trump's populist campaign for that matter, may have been an early indicator that the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Obama economy simply left too many poor and working class people behind. I would never argue that Obama's strong point was his sustained attack on poverty. In part, in his defense, he simply didn't have the votes during much of his Presidency to do what LBJ or even Bill Clinton did.

 

Having said that, if Obama had a unique anti-poverty program, it was and still is Obamacare. And that's a mushy way to say it, because technically the Obamacare insurance markets are specifically for people who are not poor and therefore don't qualify for Medicaid, based on being poor. On top of that, part of Obamacare was the expansion of Medicaid to reach a group of people who are not poor, but are close to being poor - at or below 138 % of poverty - at least in the states that took the expansion.

 

At some point, though, it struck me that the Obamacare tax credits amount to a substantial but unmeasured increase in the effective income of many individuals and families who are just above the poverty level. This is a breakdown of how those tax credits work, by state:

 

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/average-monthly-advance-premium-tax-credit-aptc/?

currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

 

In general, I think the math works this way: the closer to poverty you are, the bigger the tax credit you get. The average tax credit in the US last year was $371 a month, or over $4000 a year. If you are a single person living in California and you make double the poverty level for one person, that's about $25,000 a year. So I think that tax credit would amount to an effective 15 % or so increase in your income level - if you view it in terms of what you are actually able to buy. Because there are multiple factors that determine the size of the credits - location, income, family size - I'm not sure I've ever seen anything that clearly sets out what impact Obamacare has had on family income, or poverty.

 

In one sense you can say it has had zero impact on income or poverty, because the advance tax credits go to insurance companies in the form of a subsidy that makes insurance affordable. So it's not income at all, and it's not taxed on income. It's always been funny that the Republicans, who generally are for what Big Business wants, loved to attack these subsidies as handouts to insurance companies, even though they go to insurance companies so that people living near poverty don't have to pay insurance premiums they otherwise couldn't afford.

 

What we do know is that millions of people now can afford to buy health insurance, and do, because of these subsidies. Not surprisingly, the closer you are to being poor, the more you need the subsidies, and the more likely you are to use them. The people least likely to use them - who are likely the ones that might prefer to see the individual mandate go - are the ones near 400 % of poverty who get very little subsidy. In California that's about $50,000 for a single person. My guess is many of those people might feel they deserve a subsidy too. But I get that they are in between a rocket and a hard place. The insurance sure ain't cheap, and they are the ones who have to pay for almost all of it out of their own pocket. Getting rid of the mandate clears the deck for something the Sanderscrats might come up with (like the dreaded single payer) if the Sanderscrats actually can figure out how to win, and govern.

 

My main point is that if Collins or Murkowski or McCain (or a Democrat) had added that one extra vote to repeal the core of Obamacare - which in my mind, is NOT the individual mandate - it would have a huge negative impact on the incomes and perhaps health of lower-income Americans. Which is probably why many Republicans were glad to see Obamacare (mostly) stay.

 

But I'll end by repeating my question: is this a correct understanding of how Obamacare impacts income and poverty for people. Because it does seem like it in effect adds to millions of people's incomes, even though it does not show up the same way it would if they, for example, got a $1000 bonus or a 3 % pay raise.

 

 

WHAT was the Question ??? :confused::confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am one of those people between a rock and a hard place. While you rightly note that the Republicans were fairly lucky not to get their wish in completely smashing Obamacare, substantively they did a lot of damage. While my insurance costs were $600 a month in 2015 they are now (for the same company - BCBS) $1500 per month. While it is great that the Tax Bill left in place the fact that you can't be denied health insurance because of pre-existing condition, if you have one you tend to have to have the higher end type of insurance. So you have to pay more out of pocket costs and often more deductibles. And of course that does not include prescription drugs or dental insurance. So much of your income is for health care even if you are relatively healthy. As weird as it might seem I wish to get older (I am counting the days) so that I might make it out of the gap and can apply for Medicare. I know that whoever the Democrats run for President and even if he/she wins the U.S. will not have universal care for years.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Make America Sane Again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am one of those people between a rock and a hard place. While you rightly note that the Republicans were fairly lucky not to get their wish in completely smashing Obamacare, substantively they did a lot of damage. While my insurance costs were $600 a month in 2015 they are now (for the same company - BCBS) $1500 per month. While it is great that the Tax Bill left in place the fact that you can't be denied health insurance because of pre-existing condition, if you have one you tend to have to have the higher end type of insurance. So you have to pay more out of pocket costs and often more deductibles. And of course that does not include prescription drugs or dental insurance. So much of your income is for health care even if you are relatively healthy. As weird as it might seem I wish to get older (I am counting the days) so that I might make it out of the gap and can apply for Medicare. I know that whoever the Democrats run for President and even if he/she wins the U.S. will not have universal care for years.

 

You just need to be smart with all the tax savings Trump just gave you....:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just need to be smart with all the tax savings Trump just gave you....:rolleyes:

 

You are so right, as usual. If I bank my savings for one month I will have enough to pay for one dose of one prescription I take during that month. Hail to the Chief!!!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Make America Sane Again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT was the Question ??? :confused::confused:

 

The question first: does anybody really understand what impact Obamacare has on poverty rates, or on income in general?

 

Sorry, I know I was just too succinct, as I usually am. My bad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am one of those people between a rock and a hard place. While you rightly note that the Republicans were fairly lucky not to get their wish in completely smashing Obamacare, substantively they did a lot of damage. While my insurance costs were $600 a month in 2015 they are now (for the same company - BCBS) $1500 per month. While it is great that the Tax Bill left in place the fact that you can't be denied health insurance because of pre-existing condition, if you have one you tend to have to have the higher end type of insurance. So you have to pay more out of pocket costs and often more deductibles. And of course that does not include prescription drugs or dental insurance. So much of your income is for health care even if you are relatively healthy. As weird as it might seem I wish to get older (I am counting the days) so that I might make it out of the gap and can apply for Medicare. I know that whoever the Democrats run for President and even if he/she wins the U.S. will not have universal care for years.

 

The Republicans knew what they were doing, at least in part.

 

I don't recall the details, and I don't want to bother to look them up. But the Trumpcare (or Ryancare?) plans that were floated tended to do subsidies in ways that were almost the opposite of Obamacare. They may have been flat, if I recall right, but I think the idea is that people in the middle - not rich, not poor - might get something like up to $5000 a year in subsidies. That would put a big dent in your numbers. And maybe part of the idea was that you could sort of backdoors, sideways exclude some people ("the sick ones") from some plans by playing with community ratings to bring down premiums in pools for other people. I don't know, and I'm glad Trumpcare never saw the light of day.

 

You are right, though, and you confirmed my basic idea - that what the Republicans did was actually set up the next round of health care reform. The individual mandate always had huge holes in it that allowed millions of people to just remain uninsured. If we really simply required EVERYBODY to be in the pool, my guess (based on almost total ignorance) in your number would have been closer to $600 than $1500. By letting anybody healthy enough to risk it to just skip being in the pool, they drove the number up. This year in particular I think there is an abnormally high risk premium on policies because insurers had no way of knowing what might happen. So hopefully this is about as bad as it can get. But even if that's true, $1500 is not a pretty number. Most people would say $600 is not a pretty number, for that matter.

 

And as much as the Berniecrats are putting out a Holy Grail (or Overton window) of single payer to move the debate, your story is exactly why - whether it was Bernie or Hillary - the idea of "Medicare For All" and pragmatic and piecemeal shifts, like maybe you lower the age of Medicare to 55 first, could have made sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here's an interesting but outlandish theory.

 

Before I posted it, I brought up the subject of this post to a Republican friend who did not vote for Trump. Him and I agreed that Trump (aka President Unity) knocked the ball out of the park in his SOTU address. And that that's almost certainly what drove a spike up in his approval ratings. But my friend said, "I guarantee you one thing. Give him a week, and he'll fuck it up."

 

Well, it looks like it took about a day. There was the controversy over the Devon Nunes memo. But more important we now have the biggest point drop in Dow history.

 

So you have to wonder, could what happened to the Dow actually be related to the SOTU? I mean, if Hannity can blame it on what Obama did or didn't do years ago, surely we can blame it on what Trump did last week, right?

 

There is the thing about buy on the rumor, sell on the news. Yeah, Trump cut business taxes, and he's had an ongoing war on regulation. But that's all very 2017. Failing to have a vision of his own, or a plan of his own, what got done was very close to boilerplate McConnell/Ryan/Chamber of Commerce Republican orthodoxy.

 

So last week he pretended he actually was President Unity, and maybe had a plan to govern in ways that regular people cared about. If you want to demonize Wall Street, you could argue they just didn't really like that message much. They always want more, and Trump just didn't deliver for them.

 

It's a stretch, I know. But I'm just trying to keep Sean Hannity on his toes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that part of it is that the Republicans are starting to really fear what is going to happen to them in 2018 and the hand he had in it. Whether that is true makes no difference, I think they are really starting to fear it. Can you imagine being part of a party whose leader may have cooperated with a foreign power in order to be elected? It is like a 1950's movie. And we were sure scared during those, weren't we?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Make America Sane Again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that part of it is that the Republicans are starting to really fear what is going to happen to them in 2018 and the hand he had in it. Whether that is true makes no difference, I think they are really starting to fear it. Can you imagine being part of a party whose leader may have cooperated with a foreign power in order to be elected? It is like a 1950's movie. And we were sure scared during those, weren't we?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCB6RvRojIQ

 

Since I'm on a roll and I'm being outlandish, let's just throw this shit at the wall, too.

 

Trump's words above take on a different context after yesterday. Maybe yesterday was a blip. But if yesterday is a harbinger of things to come, either next month or next year, the words will resonate even more.

 

This is really out there, but you wonder whether these Wall Street guys even believe their own bullshit. Did Trump mean what he said in that clip above? Does he believe what he says now?

 

It's a pretty simple and sound macroeconomic argument to say that you build an economy from the ground up, or from the middle out, not from the top down. And that always happens slow and steady. So whatever you think about the "slow growth" under Obama, it was growth, and it was steady. The economy added 200,000 jobs or so a month, month after month, year after year. Traders are not the stupidest people in the world, generally. So you get the sense that they may understand and appreciate that, just like Trump maybe did when he said what he said above.

 

This "Trump bump" thing has a different feel. Shiller, who I think is a conservative, says it one way, which is perhaps more objective. It's "animal spirits," and when it comes to Trump and tax cuts, "investors love it." I'd say it's pigs feeding at the trough, and they can never get enough and they want more, more, more. And as much as it feels good in the moment to be a greedy hog, it just always turns out to be unsustainable.

 

This is a whole different thread, but it fits into the ex-factory workers with their Trump MAGA hats. What Trump says above about Carter being one of the bad Democrats with the weak economy doesn't look the same way now. Reagan sure wrote that narrative and made it stick. But I ran across this long article about labor unions written in the New York Times in 1977. As it turns out, right around then was about as good as it ever got in America for blue collar workers, by many measures: number of factory workers, strength of unions, strength of union factory wages. It was about to get worse. And honestly based on what "experts" and "union leaders" said in that article, no one saw it coming.

 

So you can go back to Carter and 1977, and for millions of the Trump people with their MAGA hats, that actually is when and why America was great.

 

Back to your narrative, TruthBTold, I view it as a twofer. I've never been completely bought into the Russia narrative. I have thought about it a lot, and I can summarize my three reasons: 1) It's more about Putin wanting to fuck with us. He didn't want Trump to win so much as he wants America to lose. 2) Even if Trump played into that and gets taken down, that's really a victory for Putin and Mike Pence. What does that get us? 3) Many people don't give a shit, and many Trump voters see this as just feeding their persecution complex and the idea that Democrats are living in some 1950's spy novel, not reality.

 

So I'm not disagreeing with you on this one, either. I agree, and in particular that's why right now it's so important to defend Mueller and the rule of law and the slow and steady work of the institutions that support democracy gradually getting at what is, in fact, the truth of the matter.

 

But yesterday supports what I've felt for a while. This is a twofer. I don't think the real undoing of Trump is going to be Russia or Putin. At least, I hope not. I hope his real undoing is the real economy, in ways he himself foreshadowed in that clip above.

 

And it's also a twofer in the sense that we all ought to be thinking as patriots about what's best for both America and the world in the long run. I don't want to see Putin win. And I think that Trump was right, and if you build an economy from the ground up or the middle out it is built to last.

 

So we can thank Trump in the long run perhaps for demonstrating how to fuck things up, and what we don't want to do in the long run - on both counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The World Class Poverty in America’s Booming Economy

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2018/02/02/world-class-poverty-americas-booming-economy/

 

From the depths of the Great Recession, the US economy has seen nine years of strong growth. Employment has increased, and the unemployment rate has declined to a historically low level of 4.1 percent. Wages, which were stagnant during much of this period of growth, have begun to inch up. The recent rewriting of the Federal Tax Code has spurred many employers to further sweeten the pot with bonuses, salary increases, and improved benefits. Yet, with all those positive signs, a significant number of Americans are quietly living at a level of poverty that rivals any in the world. The need appears to be so great that one Nobel Prize-winning economist has been prompted to shift his philanthropic priorities, signaling a challenge to the overall sector.

 

How bad is the situation? Over the first two weeks of December, Professor Philip Alston, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, visited the United States.
, perhaps surprising, painted a very disturbing picture as he compared how the US, one of the world’s wealthiest nations, compares to other developed nations:

 

  • US health care expenditures per capita are double the OECD.…But there are many fewer doctors and hospital beds per person than the OECD average.
  • US infant mortality rates in 2013 were the highest in the developed world.
  • Americans can expect to live shorter and sicker lives.
  • U.S. inequality levels are far higher than those in most European countries.
  • In terms of access to water and sanitation, the US ranks 36th in the world.
  • The youth poverty rate in the United States is the highest across the OECD, with one-quarter of youth living in poverty compared to less than 14 percent across the OECD.
  • The Stanford Center on Inequality and Poverty ranks the most well-off countries in terms of labor markets, poverty, safety net, wealth inequality, and economic mobility. The US comes in last of the top 10 most well-off countries, and 18th amongst the top 21.
  • In the OECD, the US ranks 35th out of 37 in terms of poverty and inequality.
  • US child poverty rates are the highest amongst the six richest countries—Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden and Norway.

Using $4 per day as a standard for defining extreme, “world class” poverty, Nobel Prize winning economist Angus Deaton found that even in a time of economic expansion, there are 5.3 million Americans who meet that standard and live at the very bottom of our economy. Writing an op-ed in the
, he observed, “This is a small number compared with the one for India, for example, but it is more than in Sierra Leone (3.2 million) or Nepal (2.5 million), about the same as in Senegal (5.3 million) and only one-third less than in Angola (7.4 million). Pakistan (12.7 million) has twice as many poor people as the United States, and Ethiopia about four times as many.”

 

Well into year nine of this expansion, the number of employed Americans with high school diplomas contracted by 2,095,000, and the number of people working without a high school diploma fell by 900,000. The share of all job gains claimed by Americans with some college but no B.A. degree was just over half their share of the labor force. Through it all, the number of college-educated Americans with jobs jumped by 11,909,000. That’s 1,253,000 more than the total 10,656,000 net new jobs created across the economy, suggesting that college grads are also now claiming new jobs that used to go to people without a B.A. degree.”

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows....

Che Guevara: "If you tremble with indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump's Echo of Reagan -- as Governor and President

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/02/06/trump_echoed_reagan_--_as_governor_and_president_136196.html

 

I'm posting this here, since this thread was meant as a reaction to Trump's SOTU address.

 

Trump did knock the ball out of the park, and the polls show it - for one day. It was a very well written speech. I think we can be sure of one thing. He didn't write it.

 

I thought this piece did a better job of illustrating what's wrong with Trump, than what's right with him. The author makes a good try at comparing Trump favorably to Reagan. Mainly, what it makes me think about is how much Trump suffers by comparison.

 

Can you imagine Trump writing his own speech, like Reagan wrote the speech described here? Can you imagine Trump introducing his own concepts into political dialogue, like Reagan is credited for introducing stories about heroes? And, actually, you don't even have to imagine that. What Trump has introduced into our political dialogue, via Twitter, is division and half-baked nonsense. Even a lot of his supporters don't like it.

 

And then the final point of comparison ....... Donald Trump as world statesman, proudly filling Reagan's boots? Come on!

 

ye844js13ozy.gif

 

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2251690.1433859650!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/obama-podium.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gettyimages-912436198.jpg

 

Trump: I’d ‘love to see a government shutdown’

 

President Trump on Tuesday said he’d “love to see a government shutdown” if he doesn’t get everything he wants from Congress in a deal for protecting the Dreamers and immigration reform.

 

The president, speaking during a round-table on the criminal gang MS-13, said he favored a shutdown “if we don’t get this stuff taken care of,” referring to his demands that lawmakers approve up to $30 billion for a border wall and increased security, as well as an end to chain migration and the visa lottery.

 

“If we have to shut it down because the Democrats don’t want safety, then shut it down,” he said.

 

The president also will likely not extend the March 5 deadline when work permits begin expiring for Dreamers — but the White House said the undocumented immigrants brought here as children won’t be a priority for deportation.

 

“I doubt very much” that the president would extend the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly told reporters at the Capitol.

 

The former Marine general said he was “not so sure this president has the authority to extend it” because the administration believes the Obama-era program was illegal.

 

Kelly said that as long as an immigrant in the US illegally has no criminal record, they are likely to stay “out of anyone’s scope” for a long time, and that “they are not a priority for deportation.”

 

He also says Trump won’t ask Congress for a short-term extension of the program.

 

“What makes them act is pressure,” he said about lawmakers.

 

Senators are trying to come up with a plan to protect the Dreamers — and it was unclear whether Kelly’s stance was a negotiating tactic or a valid threat.

 

Democrats and Republicans are far apart on any agreement, with the president saying he would only agree to fix the system if Democrats agree to fund the border wall, end chain migration and a Visa lottery program he opposes.

 

The White House shot down a bipartisan plan Monday from Sens. John McCain (D-Ariz.)and Chris Coons (D-Del.) that would grant permanent legal status to Dreamers while beefing up border security.

 

But the bill did not include the estimated $30 billion the president wants to enhance security and build the wall he promised on the campaign trail.

 

Kelly also told reporters that immigrants eligible for Dreamer status but never applied for it were either “too afraid to sign up” or “too lazy to get off their asses.”

 

“There are 690,000 official DACA residents and the president sent over [in his proposed deal with Congress] what amounts to two and a half times that number, to 1.8 million. The difference between 690 and 1.8 million were the people that some would say were too afraid to sign up, others would say were too lazy to get off their asses but they didn’t sign up,” Kelly said.

I can quote The Golden Girls for any situation in life . :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Trump: I’d ‘love to see a government shutdown’

 

President Trump on Tuesday said he’d “love to see a government shutdown” if he doesn’t get everything he wants from Congress in a deal for protecting the Dreamers and immigration reform.

 

The president, speaking during a round-table on the criminal gang MS-13, said he favored a shutdown “if we don’t get this stuff taken care of,” referring to his demands that lawmakers approve up to $30 billion for a border wall and increased security, as well as an end to chain migration and the visa lottery.

 

“If we have to shut it down because the Democrats don’t want safety, then shut it down,” he said.

 

The president also will likely not extend the March 5 deadline when work permits begin expiring for Dreamers — but the White House said the undocumented immigrants brought here as children won’t be a priority for deportation.

 

“I doubt very much” that the president would extend the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly told reporters at the Capitol.

 

The former Marine general said he was “not so sure this president has the authority to extend it” because the administration believes the Obama-era program was illegal.

 

Kelly said that as long as an immigrant in the US illegally has no criminal record, they are likely to stay “out of anyone’s scope” for a long time, and that “they are not a priority for deportation.”

 

He also says Trump won’t ask Congress for a short-term extension of the program.

 

“What makes them act is pressure,” he said about lawmakers.

 

Senators are trying to come up with a plan to protect the Dreamers — and it was unclear whether Kelly’s stance was a negotiating tactic or a valid threat.

 

Democrats and Republicans are far apart on any agreement, with the president saying he would only agree to fix the system if Democrats agree to fund the border wall, end chain migration and a Visa lottery program he opposes.

 

The White House shot down a bipartisan plan Monday from Sens. John McCain (D-Ariz.)and Chris Coons (D-Del.) that would grant permanent legal status to Dreamers while beefing up border security.

 

But the bill did not include the estimated $30 billion the president wants to enhance security and build the wall he promised on the campaign trail.

 

Kelly also told reporters that immigrants eligible for Dreamer status but never applied for it were either “too afraid to sign up” or “too lazy to get off their asses.”

 

“There are 690,000 official DACA residents and the president sent over [in his proposed deal with Congress] what amounts to two and a half times that number, to 1.8 million. The difference between 690 and 1.8 million were the people that some would say were too afraid to sign up, others would say were too lazy to get off their asses but they didn’t sign up,” Kelly said.

 

 

And his brain dead minions are CHEERING !!!!!!!

 

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...