myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
The play for 2020
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 60, 61, 62  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 7673
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That’s funny ..Diversion for the minions , of which you are one .. Get a good nights sleeps , another diversion awaits your pea brain tomorrow .. The IG Nothing Burger—enjoy it..
Maybe it will divert you from Trump’s unwillingness to call Florida terror attack a terror attack ..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 11261
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
Hunter openly admitted on world-wide TV that he got the job because of his dad's influence [including, at the very least, withholding a billion dollar loan guarantee (source: CNN)] while dad was in office.


Moscow iso, a traitor to his country, who can not post links to any of his Russian handlers fake news.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4589

PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
Mr G if a company CEO had an off the payroll attorney and his band of thieves running around the glove investigating / digging up dirt on a rival CEO in an effort to smear him , would the board of that company seek to intervene ?

Next question .. If the nations largest company was interviewing candidates for an open CEO position , I would think vetting would be paramount .. So, personal financial disclosures and the individuals past financial dealings would be extremely relevant , would they not?

Boggsy.................Are you still an anti- vaxxer?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 6923

PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
That’s funny ..Diversion for the minions , of which you are one .. Get a good nights sleeps , another diversion awaits your pea brain tomorrow .. The IG Nothing Burger—enjoy it..
Maybe it will divert you from Trump’s unwillingness to call Florida terror attack a terror attack ..



There have been 8 people recommended for possible prosecution so far...hardly a nothing burger nitwit...

A few more today...and the Durham will do the clean up......the evidence of a setup of Trump is overwhelming, but keep playing stupid, you're good at it..


Last edited by mat-ty on Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 7673
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
boggsman1 wrote:
Mr G if a company CEO had an off the payroll attorney and his band of thieves running around the glove investigating / digging up dirt on a rival CEO in an effort to smear him , would the board of that company seek to intervene ?

Next question .. If the nations largest company was interviewing candidates for an open CEO position , I would think vetting would be paramount .. So, personal financial disclosures and the individuals past financial dealings would be extremely relevant , would they not?

Boggsy.................Are you still an anti- vaxxer?


I'm not sure I would categorize myself as an "anti-vaxxer", but I don't think the state should have the right to force my kid to get vaccinated. So, in case you're wondering I've soured on my boy Gavin Newsom.


Last edited by boggsman1 on Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 7673
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty wrote:
boggsman1 wrote:
That’s funny ..Diversion for the minions , of which you are one .. Get a good nights sleeps , another diversion awaits your pea brain tomorrow .. The IG Nothing Burger—enjoy it..
Maybe it will divert you from Trump’s unwillingness to call Florida terror attack a terror attack ..



There have been 8 people recommender for possible prosecution so far...hardly a nothing burger nitwit...


Matty, I have a saying for that kind of reasoning: If my mom had b____, she'd be my father. Let me know when there are actually indictments...the Crime of the Century should have a few guys in cuffs....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 13366
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
By
Greg Sargent
Opinion writer
Dec. 9, 2019 at 6:28 a.m. PST
The triumph of the rich, which is one of the defining stories of our time, is generally described as largely the reflection of two factors. The first, of course, is the explosion of income among top earners, in which a tiny minority has vacuumed up a ballooning share of the gains from the past few decades of economic growth.

The second factor — which will be key to the 2020 presidential race — has been the hidden decline in the progressivity of the tax code at the top, in which the wealthiest earners have over those same decades seen their effective tax rates steadily fall.

Put those two factors together, and they tell a story about soaring U.S. inequality that is in some ways even more dramatic than each is on its own.

A new analysis prepared at my request by Gabriel Zucman — the French economist and “wealth detective” who has become famous for tracing the hidden wealth of the super-rich — illustrates that dual story in a freshly compelling way.

AD

The top-line finding: Among the bottom 50 percent of earners, average real annual income even after taxes and transfers has edged up a meager $8,000 since 1970, rising from just over $19,000 to just over $27,000 in 2018.

By contrast, among the top 1 percent of earners, average income even after taxes and transfers has tripled since 1970, rising by more than $800,000, from just over $300,000 to over $1 million in 2018.

Among the top 0.1 percent, average after-tax-and-transfer income has increased fivefold, from just over $1 million in 1970 to over $5 million in 2018. And among the top .01 percent, it has increased nearly sevenfold, from just over $3.5 million to over $24 million.

I’m emphasizing the phrase “after taxes and transfers” because this is at the core of Zucman’s new analysis. The idea is to show the combined impact of both the explosion of pretax income at the top and the decline in the effective tax rate paid by those same earners — in one result.


That's why the Trump campaign is rolling in dough. That's why the party of inequality loves him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 11261
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tariffs cost jobs....

https://www.industryweek.com/leadership/article/21118981/us-steel-to-eliminate-1545-michigan-jobs

US Steel to Eliminate 1,545 Michigan Jobs
The industrial icon also warned of a fourth-quarter loss and and announced it would slash its dividend.

Bloomberg
DEC 20, 2019
Quote:


U.S. Steel Corp. delivered a barrage of harsh news right before Christmas. The industrial icon warned of a fourth-quarter loss, announced it would shut down most of its Great Lakes Works near Detroit, lay off more than 1,500 workers and slash its dividend.

The company will indefinitely idle a “significant portion” of the Michigan operation, starting with the iron and steel-making facilities in April and then the hot-strip mill rolling facility before the end of 2020, according to a statement. Some 1,545 workers will get so-called adjustment notices.



So trumps tariffs were how much 28ish billion and in just the farming he gave away 20 billion.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-11-27/trump-dispenses-billions-aid-to-farmers-shore-up-rural-base

By DON LEESTAFF WRITER
NOV. 27, 2019 9 AM
Quote:
WASHINGTON — Moving to offset the impact his trade war has had on rural America, President Trump has bypassed Congress to send some $20 billion in aid to farmers, mostly going to a bundle of states that are essential to his reelection chances next year.
The payments have ranged from as little as $2 for some small-scale farmers to more than $1 million each for some corporate agricultural enterprises.

To sidestep Congress, which has long considered price supports for farmers its exclusive domain, the administration cited an obscure law from the 1940s that was passed in the aftermath of the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression.

Until Trump, no president had ever used that law to make direct payments to farmers, let alone tens of billions.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 11261
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



New evidence suggests Trump’s tariff gambit backfired


Quote:
After Donald Trump advanced his trade war with a series of tariffs, the president expressed great confidence that his gambit was as effective as it was wise. The Republican spent months arguing that his policy was pumping billions of dollars into the treasury, while shielding American jobs and boosting the domestic economy.

The first part of his pitch was obviously wrong – assertions that tariffs generated government revenue suggest Trump has never fully undersood the basics of his own policy – but the rest of the president’s argument appears to have collapsed, too. Marketwatch reported:

President Donald Trump’s strategy to use import tariffs to protect and boost U.S. manufacturers backfired and led to job losses and higher prices, according to a Federal Reserve study released this week.

“We find that the 2018 tariffs are associated with relative reductions in manufacturing employment and relative increases in producer prices,” concluded Fed economists Aaron Flaaen and Justin Pierce, in an academic paper.

The same report added, “We find that U.S. manufacturing industries more exposed to tariff increases experience relative reductions in employment as a positive effect from import protection is offset by larger negative effects from rising input costs and retaliatory tariffs.”

In other words, Trump embraced a tariff strategy to, among other things, boost the U.S. manufacturing sector. The evidence suggests this backfired, hurting those the president intended to help.

I imagine White House officials, if they acknowledge the Fed’s report at all, will argue that the findings must be wrong because economic growth was healthy and steady in 2019, as was job growth. If Trump’s tariff gambit had actually backfired, they’ll argue, the economy would be in much worse shape.

This fails to acknowledge a few relevant details.


First, GDP growth in 2019 was fine, but modest by historical standards. Trump likes to insist Americans are seeing the most robust growth ever, but it looks like the economy grew slower in 2019 than in 2018, and both years will fall short of the growth we saw in 2015 – when Trump launched his candidacy and told the public the economy was terrible.

The second is that job growth in 2019 was also fine, but while we wait for December’s data, it appears last year was among the worst for job growth in the last decade.

And third, the broader point isn’t that Trump’s tariffs made the economy terrible; it’s that the economy would’ve been in even better shape had the president not pursued a counterproductive strategy.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/new-evidence-suggests-trumps-tariff-gambit-backfired?cid=eml_mra_20200102

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 7673
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Leader in 2011:
“@BarackObama will attack Iran in the not too distant future because it will help him win the election” and “@BarackObama will attack Iran,”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 60, 61, 62  Next
Page 61 of 62

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group