Welcome to Dem Land

[Bham1982]

I just pointed out that Senator Obama voted to bail out those "corporate vulture" banks and was better for the 1% than even Bush. If you want to claim that "The current unemployment rate is by far a terrible indicator of how Trump has been performing as a president.", good luck with that. When his tax cut passed, all the naysayers were telling us that the the end was nigh.

Every sentence here is complete nonsense.

Economists agree the bank bailout saved the economy, no one thinks Trump is horrible specifically because of the unemployment rate [[which doesn't make any sense because the unemployment rate was the same under Obama yet Trump claims the economy was a "disaster"), and no serious commentator ever claimed that the reckless/idiotic tax changes would somehow sink the economy a year before they came into effect.

Countries don't fall within months. It took Germany 10 years of incremental bumbling by a madman to get to the cusp of WW2. It will take years of Trump's best efforts to kill this country. Hopefully Mueller does his job before its too late.

[oladub]

Everything I wrote was correct. I like your "Economists agree the bank bailout saved the economy" cliche. Its a classic example of a repeated lie being believed. Maybe you meant Robert Reich and other corporate cheerleaders. Reich was unable to predict the 2009 recession but he retains a special spot on the front page of the NY Times promoting the corporate line. TKShrive spoke of "too-big-to-fail corporate titans"and "corporate vulture"s". Yet here you are joining TK in supporting Bush's Wall Street bailout. Welcome to the New Democratic Party that promotes socialism for the rich! Iceland sent its bankers to prison. Obama and Hillary voted to give our bankers taxpayer money instead and sent no bankers to jail. President Harding, faced with higher unemployment than Obama, cut federal taxes and spending. Within two years, Harding's policies had turned the Country around with lower unemployment than Obama left us with after running the U.S. $10T into debt. The unemployment rate was not the same under Obama as you claimed even after blowing all that money which hasn't yet been repaid. My question was, for the fifth time, when was the last time unemployment was 3.8% under a Democratic President.

Another question- How are Democratic calls for open borders going to work in combination with socialism now that the new face of the Democratic Party is a socialist "from the Bronx"? Obama ran up the federal debt $120,000 for the average family of four. That hasn't been repaid yet but democrats seem to be calling for immigration, legal or otherwise, for everyone who wants a better life here while promising a cornucopia of freebees. This is like racing a boat with a hole in its hull. Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim will get his $250,000,000 investment in the NY Times back before our government is reimbursed for Bush,Hillary, and Obama's bankers' bailout by taxpayers.

I didn't want to be responding to Democratic cliches though. I'm more interested in your response to my post #194. TKShreve seemed to be ok with more Democratic rudeness and violence: "If the Supreme Court and the GOP want to silence it over and over - you'll just be seeing more and more of these interactions." -TkSshreve. Do you agree that we will be seeing more of these interactions, presumably including antifa acting like fascist bownshirts, if democrats don't have their way?

[bust]

I'm just going to respond to this part for now:

Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim will get his $250,000,000 investment in the NY Times back before our government is reimbursed for Bush,Hillary, and Obama's bankers' bailout by taxpayers.

The fact is, not only has the federal government been fully reimbursed for the bailout, due to interest, dividends, and other revenues it saw a $86,500,000,000 profit. That's on top of staving off an economic collapse.

Bailout Tracker
Tracking Every Dollar and Every Recipient
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

It's frustrating how many right-wing talking heads keep repeating the exact opposite, and how many people fall for it.

[oladub]

I'm just going to respond to this part for now:

The fact is, not only has the federal government been fully reimbursed for the bailout, due to interest, dividends, and other revenues it saw a $86,500,000,000 profit. That's on top of staving off an economic collapse.

Bailout Tracker
Tracking Every Dollar and Every Recipient
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

It's frustrating how many right-wing talking heads keep repeating the exact opposite, and how many people fall for it.

You wrote that "the federal government been fully reimbursed for the bailout, due to interest, dividends, and other revenues it saw a $86,500,000,000 profit". That $86.5B profit included $292B of dividends according to your article. It sounds like only $200B of principle got lost in the shuffle. You are implying that had the government not dumped all that money into bailing out banks, Fannie and Freddie, AIG, etc., then the dividends it could have made elsewhere compensated for not getting its principle back. My guess is that there were similar or better returns elsewhere in the market had the government not gone into debt to smooth out corporatist wrinkles.. Instead, the federal government distorted the market by loaning and giving money to the failed instead of the worthy. Repeat: Obama and Hillary were right in there with Bush and not one banker went to jail for the trouble. In any case, what you are saying is that if the government hadn't made some dividends, the federal debt would have been even worse under Obama.
You too are propagating this lie that debt is an asset. it didn't work of FDR and it didn't work for Obama. On the other hand, Unemployment is now at 4% after Robert Reich assured us that Trump's tax plan would result in the obliteration of the economy. Instead, African American and Hispanic unemployment is at record lows. I still haven't heard which Democratic president last had unemployment down to 3.8%.

[bust]

African American and Hispanic unemployment is at record lows. I still haven't heard which Democratic president last had unemployment down to 3.8%.

OK, I'll bite. I was curious so I looked into it.

Do you trust data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as reported by the St. Louis Federal Reserve?

They chart unemployment since Truman. I overlaid colors indicating the duration of each presidency, blue if he was a democrat, red if he was a republican. Grey indicates an official period of recession, as defined by the Fed.

Presidents can only take partial credit for the economy. But this much seems indisputable: unemployment has tended to decrease sharply under democratic presidents, and increase sharply under republicans.

Every single democrat started with much higher unemployment numbers than he finished with except for Carter. He left office with unemployment at the same rate it was when he started.

Every single republican started with much lower unemployment numbers than he finished with except for Reagan. And he didn't turn things around until after unemployment increased under his watch to its worst point since the Great Depression.

9 out of 11 recessions began during republican presidencies.



Let's see how Trump does. Thus far he has been incredibly lucky to have inherited an economy propelled forward by strong positive momentum. For that we can thank President Obama. It was about a year into his presidency that he turned around the economy in collapse he inherited from G.W. Bush. Since then we've enjoyed the longest period of continuous job growth in U.S. history. People of all races have benefited.

In other words, yes: unemployment is low. But don't forget how big a role momentum plays in the economy. Give credit where credit is due. When Trump inherited Obama's economy he hadn't been so lucky since he won the birth lottery. [[OK, I can think of another example.) There's still some steam in that train engine, even after the change of conductor. Unemployment continues to drop, except for last month, even as the rate of job growth has decreased under Trump compared to Obama's last four years in office. Trump hasn't derailed the economy. But he still has 2 and a half years to go.



Trading Economics Employment Data and Analysis
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...mployment-rate

PS: The answer to your question: Clinton. Unemployment was 3.8% in April 2000. A year later, under Bush, we were in a recession. Before that, Johnson. Unemployment was down to 3.4% by the end of his term. It was at that rate when Nixon inherited it. It hovered around there for Nixon's first few months, then started to creep up. A year into Nixon's term we entered a recession.

[bust]

Unemployment is now at 4% after Robert Reich assured us that Trump's tax plan would result in the obliteration of the economy.

Here's what Robert Reich said about the Trump tax cuts:

A Guide to Why the Trump-Republican Tax Plan is a Disgrace
[[for When you Confront Your Republican Uncle Bob During the Holidays)
http://robertreich.org/post/168596241350

He predicted that Trump's big cuts to corporate taxes would not lead them to invest and create jobs, but to buy back shares of their own stock and increase executive salaries.

And that's what happened. Reuters, Time Magazine, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times, Vox, USA Today, The Street, the Wall Street Journal, and so many others have said so.

Reich also wrote this:

Patriotism, Taxes, and Trump
http://robertreich.org/post/167432996625

He said the tax cuts will overwhelmingly benefit large corporations and the very rich, burden the middle class and the poor, explode the deficit, lead to cuts in government programs, increase interest rates, and damage the economy. But not right away.

Just wait. It's coming.

No don't wait. You said you're against corporate welfare and exploding deficits. Let's work to stop it!

[oladub]

Finally, an answer to my question. 3.8% under Clinton and Gingrich and 3.4% under Johnson. Johnson's Vietnam War was good for the economy. Thank goodness for Nixon eventually ending Johnson's war. But credit should be given to Clinton's 3.8%. Too bad that Clinton sewed some seeds for the eventual housing and banking collapse by reducing housing down payments partly to attain diversity lending goals.

You fail to comprehend the magnitude and significance of our $20T federal debt 1/4 of which was created by Bush and 1/2 was created by Obama. That's the other half of the equation. Until that gets paid off, our children are burdened with an economic ball and chain servicing Bush and Obama's debt. Obama's economic legacy includes that debt. My analogy is that if the average family of four had borrowed $120,000, an amount equal to new federal debt Obama assigned to the average family of four, to buy a new luxury car, add a room to the house, and take a round the world cruise, Democrats living on the block would say "That family is doing really good". The problem for this average American family of four is that they still owe $120,000 to the bank. Paying it off will crimp their style for a decade. Obama went out and created $120,000 of debt for that same family now having to service that amount of federal debt. Wait until interest rates go back to at least their historic norm. Our choices will be cutting government spending, raising taxes, or more "quantitative easing" [[printing money).

Robert Reich predicted all sorts of bad things would happen. Some companies buy back their stock. Other companies will instead choose to expand and put more money into R&D. The latter will have the future competitive edge. Robert Reich said wage earners wouldn't benefit. Instead, unemployment and wage earners taxes went down. Reich was afraid corporations would be guilty of bailouts after he supported Wall Street bailouts. He's like a street preacher dressed in sackcloth telling everyone "the end is nigh". Maybe that appeals to Democrats. I'm not masochistic enough to think like Democrats. Being a Democrat must be a little like being a victim of beaten wife or Stockholm syndrome. Never consider how we got into Vietnam or a housing mess. Only consider how Clinton, Johnson, Obama bought some flowers to make up for their messes. Caveat: I didn't like Bush or Reagan either.

[Pam]

Democrats flip flop on taking donations from fossil fuel companies.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0530743c9ca67

The

Democratic National Committee

passed a resolution Friday afternoon that activists say effectively reverses a ban on fossil fuel company donations.

[Honky Tonk]

Democrats flip flop on taking donations from fossil fuel companies.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0530743c9ca67

DEMS be a joke. All the whining that goes on about Trump and his minions. Now watch how the Hillarians start defending this bold move.

[Pam]

Article from 2016:

https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the...iper-strategy/

An email recently released by the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks shows how the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party bear direct responsibility for propelling the bigoted billionaire to the White House.In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase Clinton's chances of winning.

[Pam]

Corporate Dems Plan Social Media Censorship & Troll Campaign For Midterms

https://youtu.be/UCvie7pmiGk

[Pam]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0cf7b00313783

Senate Democrats just gave a huge gift to President Donald Trump: They agreed to expedite votes on 15 of his nominees to lifetime federal court seats because they wanted to go home.Majority Leader Mitch McConnell [[Ky.) had lined up votes for all those district court nominees last week. Normally, Senate rules require up to 30 hours of waiting time for each nominee ― something Democrats typically take advantage of to delay action on confirming Trump judges. But Minority Leader Chuck Schumer [[N.Y.) cut a deal with McConnell on Tuesday to bypass the wait times and let them all get through.

[Honky Tonk]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0cf7b00313783

NO, say it ain't so, Pam. Not the Chosen party.

[Pam]

Eek it's a socialist site, but this is an important story.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/201.../dems-m07.html

An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.

We've got one running in Michigan:

https://youtu.be/acVNSozVkpQ

Scary and not the direction I want the Democrats to go in.

[Richard]

“frequently clearing the field for a favored “star” recruit.”

Which is what happened in the last election on both sides and to me is more dangerous and should have drawn more attention then the Russians.Or were the Russians a convenient distraction?

Two candidates were chosen for us and then it was,here is what you get,pick one.That is not the way it is supposed to work,nor should the media be weaponized as it is.


Oddly enough if one ever watches the show Handmaiden,the country run under the Giliad is kind what this is mirroring,I know it is a really big stretch but I kinda see Pence as the leader of that even though I like the guy.

The military runs on technology,take out the satellites which would cripple them immediately and with a few well placed people in the right spots it becomes a scary outlook.

[Pam]

Excerpt from a Tulsi Gabbard interview.

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard discusses her attempt to remove language from the defense bill that authorizes the United States to go to war with Iran

https://youtu.be/7r9IcS-8Fog

[aj3647]

Excerpt from a Tulsi Gabbard interview.



https://youtu.be/7r9IcS-8Fog

And is that a good thing or a bad thing in your eyes, Pam? Also, who put that language in there in the first place? Care to dig into that one?

[Pam]

And is that a good thing or a bad thing in your eyes, Pam? Also, who put that language in there in the first place? Care to dig into that one?

I don't think we need to go to war with any additional countries so it's a good thing. I don't know who wrote the defense bill.

[Honky Tonk]

I don't think we need to go to war with any additional countries so it's a good thing. I don't know who wrote the defense bill.

Whoever has munitions manufacturers contributing to their campaign funds either directly or through stock options. I like the fact she tells it like it is and puts the blame on both sides. She's intelligent, seems pretty level headed, seems very civic minded, and is hot to boot. [[sorry ladies) So far, she has my vote.

[Pam]

Whoever has munitions manufacturers contributing to their campaign funds either directly or through stock options. I like the fact she tells it like it is and puts the blame on both sides. She's intelligent, seems pretty level headed, seems very civic minded, and is hot to boot. [[sorry ladies) So far, she has my vote.

Are you moving to Hawaii? She's not running for anything nationwide yet.

[Honky Tonk]

Are you moving to Hawaii? She's not running for anything nationwide yet.

Boy, you really know how to ruin a guy's fantasy don't you? But you're right. She sounds like she has too much integrity to be nominated. Besides, calling out her own party is dangerous "buck the system" talk. Dems will probably prop up Hilderbeast and throw her out there for another run @ the office. Got to have someone who'll tow the line.

[Pam]

Boy, you really know how to ruin a guy's fantasy don't you? But you're right. She sounds like she has too much integrity to be nominated. Besides, calling out her own party is dangerous "buck the system" talk. Dems will probably prop up Hilderbeast and throw her out there for another run @ the office. Got to have someone who'll tow the line.

She was a favorite possible VP choice among the "Bernie people". Here's an ad she did for him.

https://youtu.be/7QEy0mxfFaM

[oladub]

The ten states purchasing the highest percentage of "Big-3"* cars all voted for Trump. The ten states, actually nine and Washington.DC, purchasing the lowest percentage of Foreign nameplate cars all voted Democratic. [[2013)

Instead of infrastructure, Democrats bought us Detroits and Flints.

2016 state presidential vote by percentage

Nine of the ten states having the highest cost for housing, food, and transportation, the exception was Alaska, voted for Hillary. All ten of the states with the lowest cost of housing, food, and transportation voted for Trump.

You get what you vote for.

*I know, I know, Chrysler was bailed out by Obama again and then sold to Fiat so maybe it should be the "Big-2.5".

[bust]

The ten states purchasing the highest percentage of "Big-3"* cars all voted for Trump. The ten states, actually nine and Washington.DC, purchasing the lowest percentage of Foreign nameplate cars all voted Democratic. [[2013)

Instead of infrastructure, Democrats bought us Detroits and Flints.

2016 state presidential vote by percentage

Nine of the ten states having the highest cost for housing, food, and transportation, the exception was Alaska, voted for Hillary. All ten of the states with the lowest cost of housing, food, and transportation voted for Trump.

You get what you vote for.

*I know, I know, Chrysler was bailed out by Obama again and then sold to Fiat so maybe it should be the "Big-2.5".

So what?

Are you saying states that voted for Clinton are the ones where more people want to live? Because supply and demand? Does high income go along with the higher cost of living? Let's check what else we can find.

9 out of 10 states with the highest median household income voted for Clinton.
9 out of 10 states with the lowest media household income voted for Trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ates_by_income

9 out of the 10 states with the highest life expectancy voted for Clinton.
9 out of the 10 states with the lowest life expectancy voted for Trump.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...xpectancy.html

The 10 states with the highest percentages of college graduates voted for Clinton.
9 out of the 10 states with the lowest percentages of college graduates voted for Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nal_attainment

Same with educational attainment in general:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/karsten...he-u-s-in-2017

8 of the 10 states with the lowest rates of obesity voted for Clinton.
The 10 states with the highest rate of obesity voted for Trump.
https://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/

The 10 states with the lowest motor vehicle death rates per miles traveled voted for Clinton.
9 out of 10 with the highest motor vehicle death rates voted for Trump.
You get the same results per population:
https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/g...state-overview

Do you really think you can put two random statistics together and draw conclusions?

Does this mean obese people buy American cars? Or less educated people? That American made cars are more dangerous? Or that Trump voters are bad drivers?

No, of course not. A few random data points are not enough to draw those conclusions.

[oladub]

bust, I didn't offer conclusions except in your imagination. Cite any conclusions you contend I offered. I put a couple of statistics out there without commenting. Another statistic: The 10 states where residents pay the highest taxes all voted for Hillary. Nine of the 10 states paid the lowest taxes, as a percentage of income, voted for Trump.

Yeah right, everyone wants to live in New Jersey and Illinois to pay more for food, housing, and transportation and pay higher taxes.