She has to justify the Dem's basic income proposal somehow.
Printable View
She has to justify the Dem's basic income proposal somehow.
Latest numbers:
projected by end of his term, obummer will avg. an anemic 1.55% annual growth of the economy, there have been no major events during his term that in a short time span wrecked the economy. Instead, his crappy performance is a direct result of libtard policies. Remember, he got what he wanted: obummercare, the stimulus package, which they doubled-down on, tax increases, etc... obummer is the ONLY president in our history to not have at least one year with 3% growth. His best was 2015 at 2.35%.
Bush II avg. 2.21% for his full term. But, he started off inheriting the dotcom crash in 2000, and then 9/11 in 2001 wrecked the economy further, and then in 2007 the mortgage crisis crushed the economy which undid gains made from 2002-2006, which avg. 3.45% annual growth.
From 1779 to 2000 the US economy avg. 3.79% annual growth.
In fairness, have to point out that the economy did well under Bill Clinton. He avg. 3.67% for his term, and would have avg. 3.88% if not for the dotcom mess and the mini-recession late in his term. Reagan avg. 3.45% for his full term. He inherited a mess from Carter, then there was a mini-recession in 1983, and then another down turn very late in his term, 1988.
I think we (Obama, Fed Res, government, banks, whoever) just postponed a depression by throwing a bunch of money into the system. We still haven't dealt with the 2008 crash like men yet. The chickens of the stimulus and Quantitative Easing haven't come home to roost yet. The next president is going to inherit a mess. Is the Fed going to start raising interest rates? Are we ever going to deal with the national debt?
How much is the national debt contributing to the lack of growth?
According to this article, it does affect growth:
"The Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, and the People’s Bank of China have been unable to gain traction with their monetary policies…. Excluding off balance sheet liabilities, at year-end the ratio of total public and private debt relative to GDP stood at 350%, 370%, 457% and 615%, for China, the United States, the Eurocurrency zone, and Japan, respectively…. The debt ratios of all four countries exceed the level of debt that harms economic growth. As an indication of this over-indebtedness, composite nominal GDP growth for these four countries remains subdued. The slowdown occurred in spite of numerous unprecedented monetary policy actions—quantitative easing, negative or near zero overnight rates, forward guidance and other untested techniques."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmaul.../#7a1e745d4a4b
Contributing a lot. Little to no confidence guvmint can pay its bills. So, which country and/or private business wants to make a major commitment and enter into a long-term contract to provide goods/services to the guvmint? Heretofore, the Federal guvmint has been the single biggest consumer of goods and services, providing fat contracts to vendors.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
But, is that the only reason the economy is so stagnant? Nope. Within the private sector there is little confidence about what the future will bring, so most who can, have been sitting on cash. There is something like $3 trillion+ in cash, in private hands, waiting for a REAL president with real leadership to inspire confidence again. Why? Well, it's mostly all the new regulations, from the EPA, to the IRS, to obummercare, so on and so forth that has most sensible people sitting this out.
Another reason is that tight credit has destroyed entrepreneurship in this country. It's small businesses that, collectively, create most of the momentum thru business start-ups and job creation. obummer's minions have shackled the banks making risk-taking nearly impossible. It's the little guy that suffers the most. The big corporations, and those with deep pockets, can self-fund and/or qualify for loans using assets to secure those loans. obummer's libtard regulators have virtually eliminated competition for the big guys by denying small business access to capital. That's also why the stock market has performed so well under obummer, and the reason azzholes like Warren Buffet and George Soros support the democraps. NOTE: yes, it is true, the Koch Brothers, and other conservatives, benefit from the same advantages. They are business people and take advantage of opportunities when presented. But, the difference is, the Koch Brothers actually care about America. While Buffet and Soros just want to stay greedy and keep playing this advantageous hand.
Finally, most of this new debt, the $10 trillion accumulated under obummer, was never in the form of real investments. It took the form of expanding the guvmint hand-out system and creating millions of more dependents. All we get from this is more entitlements, more debt, no ROI, and an ever-increasing class of piglets suckling at the tits of guvmint. (isn't that spelled "teets?")
Another finally, remember, nearly 200 large companies moved their HQ to other countries, and no longer were beholden to pay some taxes to the US Treasury. That drain of $billions is a direct result of obummer being prez. And it is that which Trump is referring to when he says he wants to bring all that money back.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...tics&smtyp=curQuote:
Originally Posted by DogsWin
Killary leads 49% to Trump's 39% with the rest, either going to some minor party, or undecided. This represents a high water mark for HRC. Means she has maxed out what any 'crap would expect to have before the undecideds actually have to decide....election day. Killary has gotten a bounce coming out of the convention, and Trump has "stepped into it" on several issues.
So, here we are, 3 months til election day. Unless Trump starts listening to his advisors, he is toast. I have my doubts he can actually switch to a "general election mode." His ego is too large to allow him to humble himself enough to admit he doesn't know how to win a national election, and follow sound advice. In the meantime, as we see every time it is tried, Killary's numbers go up the less she talks. Her handlers are smart enough to minimize exposure on national TV.
Trump needs to park the asinine rhetoric in the garage, and focus on sensible, calm, professional presentation of the facts and focus on sound plans. Such as: here is what I will do for the economy, jobs, the debt, foreign policy, etc.. And the ONLY time Killary is mentioned is to draw the contrast to her failed libtard policies.
It's still an uphill battle for Trump to actually win this thing. The deck is stacked against him....as it is against any Repub nominee running for POTUS. But, to have a chance, he has to change his whole approach.
If Trump parks the asinine rhetoric, he's got nothing! He's all asinine rhetoric!
He is running against Hillary Clinton! She has to be the worst candidate to ever be nominated. Just sit down and shut up! Let Wikileaks and the FBI handle her crooked butt. It's not good enough for him to just be the alternative... he wants to be adored and cheered for and have people pat him on the head and tell him, "You tell 'em Trump!" He has the winning message, but he makes it about Trump and not the message. Well, most people don't like Trump, but they will vote against Hillary. Not good enough for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
True. He'll probably tell you he beat 16 Republican candidates with it, so why change anything now.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
I just heard an interesting theory. Donald Trump is all about branding and image. He is NOT a loser (in his mind). Can he handle losing on this big of a stage? Can he go down in history as the guy who lost to the worst candidate ever nominated? It would change his whole image and will define his legacy. I saw an article where Republicans are looking at other candidates should Trump drop out. Does anyone think he may quit if he sees he is going to lose?
I don't think he'd quit. That'd do just as much damage to his image as losing, and it would spark a whole new theory of him being bought out by the Klintons (which may still happen if he winds up losing given the way he's hurt himself so much lately). However, if he's going to quit, he better do it quickly. Otherwise the fix will completely be in for Hillary, as explained here:Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
https://www.conservativereview.com/c...umors-are-true
Killary pledges to raise taxes on the middle class
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/08/0...s-middle-class
The use of the word "fair." They never get specific about what is "fair."
Currently if you make less than $10,000 a year you pay 10% and if you make over $400,000 a year you pay 40%. I wonder if taking half of someone's income is "fair" in their mind?
"Fair" would seem to be a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their income regardless of how much they make... 15-20% seems "fair" to me.