Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Deezy......Am I to believe your "Pew Research Center" source or the "Wall Street Journal ??" You are not building a very good case for your argument. The facts are irrefutable.. but continue to plug your ears, cover your mouth, and cover your eyes (insert emoji here. Lol) You should believe the Wall Street Journal considering your were praising it 2 days ago and it is a conservative source....
Conservative Source ? It presents "factual data" on the topic we are discussing ? Unlike your favorite sites Vox.com, politico, and msnbc, which are light on facts and heavy on political politicking commentary. No Thanks.
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Deezy......Am I to believe your "Pew Research Center" source or the "Wall Street Journal ??" You are not building a very good case for your argument. The facts are irrefutable.. but continue to plug your ears, cover your mouth, and cover your eyes (insert emoji here. Lol) You should believe the Wall Street Journal considering your were praising it 2 days ago and it is a conservative source....
Conservative Source ? It presents "factual data" on the topic we are discussing ? Unlike your favorite sites Vox.com, politico, and msnbc, which are light on facts and heavy on political politicking commentary. No Thanks.
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Deezy......Am I to believe your "Pew Research Center" source or the "Wall Street Journal ??" You are not building a very good case for your argument. The facts are irrefutable.. but continue to plug your ears, cover your mouth, and cover your eyes (insert emoji here. Lol) You should believe the Wall Street Journal considering your were praising it 2 days ago and it is a conservative source.... Conservative Source ? It presents "factual data" on the topic we are discussing ? Unlike your favorite sites Vox.com, politico, and msnbc, which are light on facts and heavy on political politicking commentary. No Thanks.
Yes. Your lack of overall knowledge is baffling. I will not be responding to you further. You do not even realize that the Wall Street Journal is a conservative leaning publication? Must be new to politics and reading in general. Have you heard of the Murdoch Family? They happen to own the Wall Street Journal and your favorite new source Fox News??? Not conservative leaning. Geezus you are clueless. My articles are not from Vox, Politico, and MSNBC. Last ones I just posted are from NPR and Forbes with actually numerical facts and data, unlike anything you ever post. In fact you do not even post sources, simply jibberish and claims with no factual support. Have a good life and keep your head in the clouds.
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51:
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Deezy......Am I to believe your "Pew Research Center" source or the "Wall Street Journal ??" You are not building a very good case for your argument. The facts are irrefutable.. but continue to plug your ears, cover your mouth, and cover your eyes (insert emoji here. Lol) You should believe the Wall Street Journal considering your were praising it 2 days ago and it is a conservative source.... Conservative Source ? It presents "factual data" on the topic we are discussing ? Unlike your favorite sites Vox.com, politico, and msnbc, which are light on facts and heavy on political politicking commentary. No Thanks.
Yes. Your lack of overall knowledge is baffling. I will not be responding to you further. You do not even realize that the Wall Street Journal is a conservative leaning publication? Must be new to politics and reading in general. Have you heard of the Murdoch Family? They happen to own the Wall Street Journal and your favorite new source Fox News??? Not conservative leaning. Geezus you are clueless. My articles are not from Vox, Politico, and MSNBC. Last ones I just posted are from NPR and Forbes with actually numerical facts and data, unlike anything you ever post. In fact you do not even post sources, simply jibberish and claims with no factual support. Have a good life and keep your head in the clouds.
I am pretty sure I already posted the link before.. www.wsj.com/articles/low-income-workers-see-long-awaited-wage-gains-1538771475
So you clown the Wall Street Journal and then post the same uninformed article from 2 years ago that was already debunked with numerical facts? This isn't helping your weak argument. This was already responded to by Fubah and I with actual numbers and data refuting it from the U.S. Government!
You are a real piece of work...I'll give you that.
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51:
I am pretty sure I already posted the link before.. www.wsj.com/articles/low-income-workers-see-long-awaited-wage-gains-1538771475
So you clown the Wall Street Journal and then post the same uninformed article from 2 years ago that was already debunked with numerical facts? This isn't helping your weak argument. This was already responded to by Fubah and I with actual numbers and data refuting it from the U.S. Government!
You are a real piece of work...I'll give you that.
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: And Business tax cut ??? Cool, so he gave the rich business owners greater tax breaks. You own a corporation? That didn't help the masses, especially when it is isn't being funneled back into creating more jobs or higher wages, and wage growth for the masses has been stagnant under Trump.
adolf's tax cut for the rich DID slightly boost the economy, temporarily. Economists point this out.
They also point out, the overwhelming benefit went directly to the already wealthy and minimally to everyone else.
Of course everyone who is NOT an adolf-fart-sniffer understands full well that buying shiny new appliances on a credit card might look pretty, but as prudent stewards of sound business, we have to include a sobering look at our credit card statement too. DEBT is a VERY LARGE part of the economy. How are we doing on that front??
Economists also add, that the effect of that massive DEBT-inducing tax cut - minimal though it was to the economy - has completely worn off now
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: And Business tax cut ??? Cool, so he gave the rich business owners greater tax breaks. You own a corporation? That didn't help the masses, especially when it is isn't being funneled back into creating more jobs or higher wages, and wage growth for the masses has been stagnant under Trump.
adolf's tax cut for the rich DID slightly boost the economy, temporarily. Economists point this out.
They also point out, the overwhelming benefit went directly to the already wealthy and minimally to everyone else.
Of course everyone who is NOT an adolf-fart-sniffer understands full well that buying shiny new appliances on a credit card might look pretty, but as prudent stewards of sound business, we have to include a sobering look at our credit card statement too. DEBT is a VERY LARGE part of the economy. How are we doing on that front??
Economists also add, that the effect of that massive DEBT-inducing tax cut - minimal though it was to the economy - has completely worn off now
Ironically, the WSJ isn't actually in love with Trump like you would believe. Some Never Trumpers and even Democrats post in their editorial pages , like your Boy Rahm Emanuel. I have been a reader of the WSJ for a couple "decades." Of course I know the Murdoch family bought the WSJ from Dow Inc. years ago. Trust me ... You are not educating me on this topic (and most others). It is flowing the other way.
Ironically, the WSJ isn't actually in love with Trump like you would believe. Some Never Trumpers and even Democrats post in their editorial pages , like your Boy Rahm Emanuel. I have been a reader of the WSJ for a couple "decades." Of course I know the Murdoch family bought the WSJ from Dow Inc. years ago. Trust me ... You are not educating me on this topic (and most others). It is flowing the other way.
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Deezy......Am I to believe your "Pew Research Center" source or the "Wall Street Journal ??" You are not building a very good case for your argument. The facts are irrefutable.. but continue to plug your ears, cover your mouth, and cover your eyes (insert emoji here. Lol) You should believe the Wall Street Journal considering your were praising it 2 days ago and it is a conservative source.... Conservative Source ? It presents "factual data" on the topic we are discussing ? Unlike your favorite sites Vox.com, politico, and msnbc, which are light on facts and heavy on political politicking commentary. No Thanks. Yes. Your lack of overall knowledge is baffling. I will not be responding to you further. You do not even realize that the Wall Street Journal is a conservative leaning publication? Must be new to politics and reading in general. Have you heard of the Murdoch Family? They happen to own the Wall Street Journal and your favorite new source Fox News??? Not conservative leaning. Geezus you are clueless. My articles are not from Vox, Politico, and MSNBC. Last ones I just posted are from NPR and Forbes with actually numerical facts and data, unlike anything you ever post. In fact you do not even post sources, simply jibberish and claims with no factual support. Have a good life and keep your head in the clouds.
Translation: I don't have anything intelligent to respond with ! I am defeated !
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Deezy......Am I to believe your "Pew Research Center" source or the "Wall Street Journal ??" You are not building a very good case for your argument. The facts are irrefutable.. but continue to plug your ears, cover your mouth, and cover your eyes (insert emoji here. Lol) You should believe the Wall Street Journal considering your were praising it 2 days ago and it is a conservative source.... Conservative Source ? It presents "factual data" on the topic we are discussing ? Unlike your favorite sites Vox.com, politico, and msnbc, which are light on facts and heavy on political politicking commentary. No Thanks. Yes. Your lack of overall knowledge is baffling. I will not be responding to you further. You do not even realize that the Wall Street Journal is a conservative leaning publication? Must be new to politics and reading in general. Have you heard of the Murdoch Family? They happen to own the Wall Street Journal and your favorite new source Fox News??? Not conservative leaning. Geezus you are clueless. My articles are not from Vox, Politico, and MSNBC. Last ones I just posted are from NPR and Forbes with actually numerical facts and data, unlike anything you ever post. In fact you do not even post sources, simply jibberish and claims with no factual support. Have a good life and keep your head in the clouds.
Translation: I don't have anything intelligent to respond with ! I am defeated !
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Deezy......Am I to believe your "Pew Research Center" source or the "Wall Street Journal ??" You are not building a very good case for your argument. The facts are irrefutable.. but continue to plug your ears, cover your mouth, and cover your eyes (insert emoji here. Lol) You should believe the Wall Street Journal considering your were praising it 2 days ago and it is a conservative source.... Conservative Source ? It presents "factual data" on the topic we are discussing ? Unlike your favorite sites Vox.com, politico, and msnbc, which are light on facts and heavy on political politicking commentary. No Thanks. Yes. Your lack of overall knowledge is baffling. I will not be responding to you further. You do not even realize that the Wall Street Journal is a conservative leaning publication? Must be new to politics and reading in general. Have you heard of the Murdoch Family? They happen to own the Wall Street Journal and your favorite new source Fox News??? Not conservative leaning. Geezus you are clueless. My articles are not from Vox, Politico, and MSNBC. Last ones I just posted are from NPR and Forbes with actually numerical facts and data, unlike anything you ever post. In fact you do not even post sources, simply jibberish and claims with no factual support. Have a good life and keep your head in the clouds. Translation: I don't have anything intelligent to respond with ! I am defeated !
Ooohhh. Got me. Why don't you post that same WSJ opinion piece from two years ago that was debunked 5 times that you posted 4 times already???? Tell me more....
It's an opinion piece on blue collar worker wages rising faster than high income earners, which didn't happen. Let me know what you think?
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51:
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Deezy......Am I to believe your "Pew Research Center" source or the "Wall Street Journal ??" You are not building a very good case for your argument. The facts are irrefutable.. but continue to plug your ears, cover your mouth, and cover your eyes (insert emoji here. Lol) You should believe the Wall Street Journal considering your were praising it 2 days ago and it is a conservative source.... Conservative Source ? It presents "factual data" on the topic we are discussing ? Unlike your favorite sites Vox.com, politico, and msnbc, which are light on facts and heavy on political politicking commentary. No Thanks. Yes. Your lack of overall knowledge is baffling. I will not be responding to you further. You do not even realize that the Wall Street Journal is a conservative leaning publication? Must be new to politics and reading in general. Have you heard of the Murdoch Family? They happen to own the Wall Street Journal and your favorite new source Fox News??? Not conservative leaning. Geezus you are clueless. My articles are not from Vox, Politico, and MSNBC. Last ones I just posted are from NPR and Forbes with actually numerical facts and data, unlike anything you ever post. In fact you do not even post sources, simply jibberish and claims with no factual support. Have a good life and keep your head in the clouds. Translation: I don't have anything intelligent to respond with ! I am defeated !
Ooohhh. Got me. Why don't you post that same WSJ opinion piece from two years ago that was debunked 5 times that you posted 4 times already???? Tell me more....
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Deezy......Am I to believe your "Pew Research Center" source or the "Wall Street Journal ??" You are not building a very good case for your argument. The facts are irrefutable.. but continue to plug your ears, cover your mouth, and cover your eyes (insert emoji here. Lol) You should believe the Wall Street Journal considering your were praising it 2 days ago and it is a conservative source.... Conservative Source ? It presents "factual data" on the topic we are discussing ? Unlike your favorite sites Vox.com, politico, and msnbc, which are light on facts and heavy on political politicking commentary. No Thanks.
Yes. Your lack of overall knowledge is baffling.
I will not be responding to you further. You do not even realize that the Wall Street Journal is a conservative leaning publication? Must be new to politics and reading in general. Have you heard of the Murdoch Family? They happen to own the Wall Street Journal and your favorite new source Fox News??? Not conservative leaning.
Geezus you are clueless !!!
My articles are not from Vox, Politico, and MSNBC. Last ones I just posted are from NPR and Forbes with actually numerical facts and data, unlike anything you ever post.
In fact you do not even post sources,
simply jibberish and claims with no factual support.
WELL SAID, Dee !!
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51:
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51:
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Deezy......Am I to believe your "Pew Research Center" source or the "Wall Street Journal ??" You are not building a very good case for your argument. The facts are irrefutable.. but continue to plug your ears, cover your mouth, and cover your eyes (insert emoji here. Lol) You should believe the Wall Street Journal considering your were praising it 2 days ago and it is a conservative source.... Conservative Source ? It presents "factual data" on the topic we are discussing ? Unlike your favorite sites Vox.com, politico, and msnbc, which are light on facts and heavy on political politicking commentary. No Thanks.
Yes. Your lack of overall knowledge is baffling.
I will not be responding to you further. You do not even realize that the Wall Street Journal is a conservative leaning publication? Must be new to politics and reading in general. Have you heard of the Murdoch Family? They happen to own the Wall Street Journal and your favorite new source Fox News??? Not conservative leaning.
Geezus you are clueless !!!
My articles are not from Vox, Politico, and MSNBC. Last ones I just posted are from NPR and Forbes with actually numerical facts and data, unlike anything you ever post.
In fact you do not even post sources,
simply jibberish and claims with no factual support.
So you clown the Wall Street Journal and then post
the same uninformed article from 2 years ago
that was already debunked with numerical facts?
This isn't helping your weak argument.
You (mush51) are a real piece of work...
We (the good guys/NON-adolf-fart-lovers) are in the presence of a dude (mush51) whose logic is based around sending his kids out to play in the hot sun WITHOUT sunscreen, then (much like trump) when the kids get sunburt, in agony, he blames the sun.
Truth is, I'm surprised he hasn't responded to our "FACTS with LINKS" with the common trump-lover defense: "Liar, Liar, pants on Fire"
The case for Obama's last 3 years vs trump's last 3 years has been laid out well and stands on merit - unrefuted by a preponderance of evidence.
This is NOT to suggest that trump's 3 years was a faliure. Heavens no. Whilst riding Obama's wave of 4.6% unemployment, a reduction in deficit, stronger JOB numbers, and the longest period of sustained growth in modern history, trump didn't ph*ck it up (except for DEBTS!) and we can call trump's last 3 years good too. Notwithstanding his FAILED campaign promises for 3%, 4%, even 5% sustained growth, that got him elected as a supposed "great business man" Notwithstanding his FAILED campaign promises he could reduce not only the annual deficit to ZERO (like Clinton did) but the National Debt to ZERO! Yes, down from then $19 TRILLION to zero. People believed him and voted for him, because, afterall, he is a "great business man" Instead he made it worse! By a long shot! Now we are at $26.5 TRILLION with an expected all-time record deficit just for this year of over $4 TRILLION. And his last budget forecast was for even MORE spending (more debt)
Trump promised to bring back the coal industry, and got their votes. How's that going?
In the end, the majority of Americans didn't buy his BS, as 63 million suckers voted FOR adolf, but 66 million voted AGAINST him. In fact, in that election, 15 MILLION more could have voted AGAINST adolf and he still would have been appointed president. Strange, for a democracy.
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51:
So you clown the Wall Street Journal and then post
the same uninformed article from 2 years ago
that was already debunked with numerical facts?
This isn't helping your weak argument.
You (mush51) are a real piece of work...
We (the good guys/NON-adolf-fart-lovers) are in the presence of a dude (mush51) whose logic is based around sending his kids out to play in the hot sun WITHOUT sunscreen, then (much like trump) when the kids get sunburt, in agony, he blames the sun.
Truth is, I'm surprised he hasn't responded to our "FACTS with LINKS" with the common trump-lover defense: "Liar, Liar, pants on Fire"
The case for Obama's last 3 years vs trump's last 3 years has been laid out well and stands on merit - unrefuted by a preponderance of evidence.
This is NOT to suggest that trump's 3 years was a faliure. Heavens no. Whilst riding Obama's wave of 4.6% unemployment, a reduction in deficit, stronger JOB numbers, and the longest period of sustained growth in modern history, trump didn't ph*ck it up (except for DEBTS!) and we can call trump's last 3 years good too. Notwithstanding his FAILED campaign promises for 3%, 4%, even 5% sustained growth, that got him elected as a supposed "great business man" Notwithstanding his FAILED campaign promises he could reduce not only the annual deficit to ZERO (like Clinton did) but the National Debt to ZERO! Yes, down from then $19 TRILLION to zero. People believed him and voted for him, because, afterall, he is a "great business man" Instead he made it worse! By a long shot! Now we are at $26.5 TRILLION with an expected all-time record deficit just for this year of over $4 TRILLION. And his last budget forecast was for even MORE spending (more debt)
Trump promised to bring back the coal industry, and got their votes. How's that going?
In the end, the majority of Americans didn't buy his BS, as 63 million suckers voted FOR adolf, but 66 million voted AGAINST him. In fact, in that election, 15 MILLION more could have voted AGAINST adolf and he still would have been appointed president. Strange, for a democracy.
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Deezy - what has the current democratic party done to help the President of the United States - NAME ONE?????????????? That is not the topic we are focused on at the moment. Keep up. The support should be reciprocal. The President shows no support for any Dems in office or "Democratic" states, so why should they show him love? All he does is attack the blue states, and claim he shouldn't support Democratic governors. You think that is leadership? He is the President of all states, not just Republican ones. By the way I am still waiting on the name of one signature economic policy from Trump, and not a single one of the Trumpers can name one. Hilarious.
1)Renegotiated NAFTA-
2)Energy independence. 3)Funded a depleted military 4) Immediate health care for vets 5)Brought back manufacturing jobs. Change your smartass attitude
if you think you can be respectful to others who don't agree with you. Says alot about a man's character wouldn't you agree!
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Deezy - what has the current democratic party done to help the President of the United States - NAME ONE?????????????? That is not the topic we are focused on at the moment. Keep up. The support should be reciprocal. The President shows no support for any Dems in office or "Democratic" states, so why should they show him love? All he does is attack the blue states, and claim he shouldn't support Democratic governors. You think that is leadership? He is the President of all states, not just Republican ones. By the way I am still waiting on the name of one signature economic policy from Trump, and not a single one of the Trumpers can name one. Hilarious.
1)Renegotiated NAFTA-
2)Energy independence. 3)Funded a depleted military 4) Immediate health care for vets 5)Brought back manufacturing jobs. Change your smartass attitude
if you think you can be respectful to others who don't agree with you. Says alot about a man's character wouldn't you agree!
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Deezy - what has the current democratic party done to help the President of the United States - NAME ONE?????????????? That is not the topic we are focused on at the moment. Keep up. The support should be reciprocal. The President shows no support for any Dems in office or "Democratic" states, so why should they show him love? All he does is attack the blue states, and claim he shouldn't support Democratic governors. You think that is leadership? He is the President of all states, not just Republican ones. By the way I am still waiting on the name of one signature economic policy from Trump, and not a single one of the Trumpers can name one. Hilarious. 1)Renegotiated NAFTA- 2)Energy independence. 3)Funded a depleted military 4) Immediate health care for vets 5)Brought back manufacturing jobs. Change your smartass attitude if you think you can be respectful to others who don't agree with you. Says alot about a man's character wouldn't you agree!
Again these aren't signature policies. Thanks though. Presidents are supposed to negotiate foreign policy deals as heads of foreign policy. Again not signature policies. Trump did not create the original NAFTA deal, and his renegotiating that deal, which seeks to snuff our friendly allies in the North (Canada) who have been tremendous trade partners is not exactly beneficial in my eyes. Depleted military??? Funny Obama and Trump's spending on military on an annual basis is extremely similar. $600 billion to around $700 billion. So is his budget more, yes. But the military was not "depleted" in any sense. That is pure nonsense. Sounds like you buy into a lot of the rhetoric. Anyway. Have a great day sunshine!
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Deezy - what has the current democratic party done to help the President of the United States - NAME ONE?????????????? That is not the topic we are focused on at the moment. Keep up. The support should be reciprocal. The President shows no support for any Dems in office or "Democratic" states, so why should they show him love? All he does is attack the blue states, and claim he shouldn't support Democratic governors. You think that is leadership? He is the President of all states, not just Republican ones. By the way I am still waiting on the name of one signature economic policy from Trump, and not a single one of the Trumpers can name one. Hilarious. 1)Renegotiated NAFTA- 2)Energy independence. 3)Funded a depleted military 4) Immediate health care for vets 5)Brought back manufacturing jobs. Change your smartass attitude if you think you can be respectful to others who don't agree with you. Says alot about a man's character wouldn't you agree!
Again these aren't signature policies. Thanks though. Presidents are supposed to negotiate foreign policy deals as heads of foreign policy. Again not signature policies. Trump did not create the original NAFTA deal, and his renegotiating that deal, which seeks to snuff our friendly allies in the North (Canada) who have been tremendous trade partners is not exactly beneficial in my eyes. Depleted military??? Funny Obama and Trump's spending on military on an annual basis is extremely similar. $600 billion to around $700 billion. So is his budget more, yes. But the military was not "depleted" in any sense. That is pure nonsense. Sounds like you buy into a lot of the rhetoric. Anyway. Have a great day sunshine!
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Deezy - what has the current democratic party done to help the President of the United States - NAME ONE?????????????? That is not the topic we are focused on at the moment. Keep up. The support should be reciprocal. The President shows no support for any Dems in office or "Democratic" states, so why should they show him love? All he does is attack the blue states, and claim he shouldn't support Democratic governors. You think that is leadership? He is the President of all states, not just Republican ones. By the way I am still waiting on the name of one signature economic policy from Trump, and not a single one of the Trumpers can name one. Hilarious. 1)Renegotiated NAFTA- 2)Energy independence. 3)Funded a depleted military 4) Immediate health care for vets 5)Brought back manufacturing jobs. Change your smartass attitude if you think you can be respectful to others who don't agree with you. Says alot about a man's character wouldn't you agree!
Oh, wait you need a fancy name for accomplishments!
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel:
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Deezy - what has the current democratic party done to help the President of the United States - NAME ONE?????????????? That is not the topic we are focused on at the moment. Keep up. The support should be reciprocal. The President shows no support for any Dems in office or "Democratic" states, so why should they show him love? All he does is attack the blue states, and claim he shouldn't support Democratic governors. You think that is leadership? He is the President of all states, not just Republican ones. By the way I am still waiting on the name of one signature economic policy from Trump, and not a single one of the Trumpers can name one. Hilarious. 1)Renegotiated NAFTA- 2)Energy independence. 3)Funded a depleted military 4) Immediate health care for vets 5)Brought back manufacturing jobs. Change your smartass attitude if you think you can be respectful to others who don't agree with you. Says alot about a man's character wouldn't you agree!
Oh, wait you need a fancy name for accomplishments!
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Deezy - what has the current democratic party done to help the President of the United States - NAME ONE?????????????? That is not the topic we are focused on at the moment. Keep up. The support should be reciprocal. The President shows no support for any Dems in office or "Democratic" states, so why should they show him love? All he does is attack the blue states, and claim he shouldn't support Democratic governors. You think that is leadership? He is the President of all states, not just Republican ones. By the way I am still waiting on the name of one signature economic policy from Trump, and not a single one of the Trumpers can name one. Hilarious. 1)Renegotiated NAFTA- 2)Energy independence. 3)Funded a depleted military 4) Immediate health care for vets 5)Brought back manufacturing jobs. Change your smartass attitude if you think you can be respectful to others who don't agree with you. Says alot about a man's character wouldn't you agree! Again these aren't signature policies. Thanks though. Presidents are supposed to negotiate foreign policy deals as heads of foreign policy. Again not signature policies. Trump did not create the original NAFTA deal, and his renegotiating that deal, which seeks to snuff our friendly allies in the North (Canada) who have been tremendous trade partners is not exactly beneficial in my eyes. Depleted military??? Funny Obama and Trump's spending on military on an annual basis is extremely similar. $600 billion to around $700 billion. So is his budget more, yes. But the military was not "depleted" in any sense. That is pure nonsense. Sounds like you buy into a lot of the rhetoric. Anyway. Have a great day sunshine! https://theconversation.com/trumps-planned-military-buildup-is-based-on-faulty-claims-not-good-strategy-73883 My attitude is my business thanks.
Thanks for proving my point about character!
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Deezy - what has the current democratic party done to help the President of the United States - NAME ONE?????????????? That is not the topic we are focused on at the moment. Keep up. The support should be reciprocal. The President shows no support for any Dems in office or "Democratic" states, so why should they show him love? All he does is attack the blue states, and claim he shouldn't support Democratic governors. You think that is leadership? He is the President of all states, not just Republican ones. By the way I am still waiting on the name of one signature economic policy from Trump, and not a single one of the Trumpers can name one. Hilarious. 1)Renegotiated NAFTA- 2)Energy independence. 3)Funded a depleted military 4) Immediate health care for vets 5)Brought back manufacturing jobs. Change your smartass attitude if you think you can be respectful to others who don't agree with you. Says alot about a man's character wouldn't you agree! Again these aren't signature policies. Thanks though. Presidents are supposed to negotiate foreign policy deals as heads of foreign policy. Again not signature policies. Trump did not create the original NAFTA deal, and his renegotiating that deal, which seeks to snuff our friendly allies in the North (Canada) who have been tremendous trade partners is not exactly beneficial in my eyes. Depleted military??? Funny Obama and Trump's spending on military on an annual basis is extremely similar. $600 billion to around $700 billion. So is his budget more, yes. But the military was not "depleted" in any sense. That is pure nonsense. Sounds like you buy into a lot of the rhetoric. Anyway. Have a great day sunshine! https://theconversation.com/trumps-planned-military-buildup-is-based-on-faulty-claims-not-good-strategy-73883 My attitude is my business thanks.
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: So, are we ignoring the benefits of the business tax cuts ? https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/789540931/2-years-later-trump-tax-cuts-have-failed-to-deliver-on-gops-promises It's clear you simply avoid reading facts you don't want to acknowledge.
That much is clear, yes.
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: So, are we ignoring the benefits of the business tax cuts ? https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/789540931/2-years-later-trump-tax-cuts-have-failed-to-deliver-on-gops-promises It's clear you simply avoid reading facts you don't want to acknowledge.
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Deezy - what has the current democratic party done to help the President of the United States - NAME ONE?????????????? That is not the topic we are focused on at the moment. Keep up. The support should be reciprocal. The President shows no support for any Dems in office or "Democratic" states, so why should they show him love? All he does is attack the blue states, and claim he shouldn't support Democratic governors. You think that is leadership? He is the President of all states, not just Republican ones. By the way I am still waiting on the name of one signature economic policy from Trump, and not a single one of the Trumpers can name one. Hilarious. 1)Renegotiated NAFTA- 2)Energy independence. 3)Funded a depleted military 4) Immediate health care for vets 5)Brought back manufacturing jobs. Change your smartass attitude if you think you can be respectful to others who don't agree with you. Says alot about a man's character wouldn't you agree! Again these aren't signature policies. Thanks though. Presidents are supposed to negotiate foreign policy deals as heads of foreign policy. Again not signature policies. Trump did not create the original NAFTA deal, and his renegotiating that deal, which seeks to snuff our friendly allies in the North (Canada) who have been tremendous trade partners is not exactly beneficial in my eyes. Depleted military??? Funny Obama and Trump's spending on military on an annual basis is extremely similar. $600 billion to around $700 billion. So is his budget more, yes. But the military was not "depleted" in any sense. That is pure nonsense. Sounds like you buy into a lot of the rhetoric. Anyway. Have a great day sunshine! https://theconversation.com/trumps-planned-military-buildup-is-based-on-faulty-claims-not-good-strategy-73883 My attitude is my business thanks. Thanks for proving my point about character!
Pretty ironic stressing character in posts defending Trump. you care about character in a free message board but not from your President??? Interesting. He is never an immoral, smart a$&”, who insults anyone that disagrees with him! Too funny.
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel:
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Deezy - what has the current democratic party done to help the President of the United States - NAME ONE?????????????? That is not the topic we are focused on at the moment. Keep up. The support should be reciprocal. The President shows no support for any Dems in office or "Democratic" states, so why should they show him love? All he does is attack the blue states, and claim he shouldn't support Democratic governors. You think that is leadership? He is the President of all states, not just Republican ones. By the way I am still waiting on the name of one signature economic policy from Trump, and not a single one of the Trumpers can name one. Hilarious. 1)Renegotiated NAFTA- 2)Energy independence. 3)Funded a depleted military 4) Immediate health care for vets 5)Brought back manufacturing jobs. Change your smartass attitude if you think you can be respectful to others who don't agree with you. Says alot about a man's character wouldn't you agree! Again these aren't signature policies. Thanks though. Presidents are supposed to negotiate foreign policy deals as heads of foreign policy. Again not signature policies. Trump did not create the original NAFTA deal, and his renegotiating that deal, which seeks to snuff our friendly allies in the North (Canada) who have been tremendous trade partners is not exactly beneficial in my eyes. Depleted military??? Funny Obama and Trump's spending on military on an annual basis is extremely similar. $600 billion to around $700 billion. So is his budget more, yes. But the military was not "depleted" in any sense. That is pure nonsense. Sounds like you buy into a lot of the rhetoric. Anyway. Have a great day sunshine! https://theconversation.com/trumps-planned-military-buildup-is-based-on-faulty-claims-not-good-strategy-73883 My attitude is my business thanks. Thanks for proving my point about character!
Pretty ironic stressing character in posts defending Trump. you care about character in a free message board but not from your President??? Interesting. He is never an immoral, smart a$&”, who insults anyone that disagrees with him! Too funny.
Quote Originally Posted by gambleholic63: To further my point, I wonder how many $4,000 per month health insurance premium checks you had to write in the years immediately following the passage of the ACA? Many of my friends and their families were faced with the harsh reality that they either pony up the 4K a month or suffer the consequences of an illness bankrupting their future. So...how many monthly 4k checks did you have to write? To my eyes, it seems so much easier to support destructive economic policies when you are on the receiving end. So....how many monthly checks? I'm waiting. I have a family of 4 and never had to dole out 4k a month during Obama's time, so I have no idea what kind of coverage they required or their health backgrounds. Sounds like they must have had some serious health concerns. So, some of your friends had to pay high costs, so you hate the ACA?? Nice argument. Didn't impact you in any way? Love the friends argument. Talk about weak.
Deezy. This is where your mind is disconnected from what was happening in the real world. Obviously, we all have different families and friends and we all live in different financial and economic circles. I can assure you, as I am sure Rush can chime in on, that people were getting hosed by the ACA. I'm surprised you are oblivious to the fact, but this is where you and I have a tremendous disconnect.
Rush...please chime in with some of the experiences you witnessed so Deezy can wake up and smell the coffee.
Gamble for entertainment, invest for wealth!
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by gambleholic63: To further my point, I wonder how many $4,000 per month health insurance premium checks you had to write in the years immediately following the passage of the ACA? Many of my friends and their families were faced with the harsh reality that they either pony up the 4K a month or suffer the consequences of an illness bankrupting their future. So...how many monthly 4k checks did you have to write? To my eyes, it seems so much easier to support destructive economic policies when you are on the receiving end. So....how many monthly checks? I'm waiting. I have a family of 4 and never had to dole out 4k a month during Obama's time, so I have no idea what kind of coverage they required or their health backgrounds. Sounds like they must have had some serious health concerns. So, some of your friends had to pay high costs, so you hate the ACA?? Nice argument. Didn't impact you in any way? Love the friends argument. Talk about weak.
Deezy. This is where your mind is disconnected from what was happening in the real world. Obviously, we all have different families and friends and we all live in different financial and economic circles. I can assure you, as I am sure Rush can chime in on, that people were getting hosed by the ACA. I'm surprised you are oblivious to the fact, but this is where you and I have a tremendous disconnect.
Rush...please chime in with some of the experiences you witnessed so Deezy can wake up and smell the coffee.
LIFTING UP ALL AMERICANS: President Trump’s pro-growth policies are reducing inequality and benefiting Americans who were previously left behind. Nearly 2.5 million Americans have been lifted out of poverty, including nearly 1.4 million children. The poverty rates for African Americans and Hispanic Americans hit new lows in 2018. Wages are rising faster for the bottom 10 percent of earners than for the top 10 percent of earners, and wage growth for employees has surpassed wage growth for managers. Since President Trump’s historic tax reform, the lowest earners have enjoyed faster wage gains than every other income group. The net wealth held by the bottom half of households has grown by 47 percent—more than three times the rate of increase for the top 1 percent of households.
Proclamations from adolf-lovers without evidence (links) ....what a shocker.
Truth is overall mean average gains in wages are LARGELY thanks to raises in minimum wages - instituted by mayors and/or Governors - NOT the fed. In fact trump OPPOSES these raises.
Another truth is, if in a given year the millionaires didn't see a single penny more in wages,
but the $7.50/hr federal minimum wage earner got a .50 increase to $8.00/hr, (still only half a living wage)
Republicans would proclaim the wonderful BENEVOLENCE of almighty trump saving the poor
because they got ALL the wage increases and the rich got nothing, so the poor should be grateful.
Quote Originally Posted by chadebennett:
LIFTING UP ALL AMERICANS: President Trump’s pro-growth policies are reducing inequality and benefiting Americans who were previously left behind. Nearly 2.5 million Americans have been lifted out of poverty, including nearly 1.4 million children. The poverty rates for African Americans and Hispanic Americans hit new lows in 2018. Wages are rising faster for the bottom 10 percent of earners than for the top 10 percent of earners, and wage growth for employees has surpassed wage growth for managers. Since President Trump’s historic tax reform, the lowest earners have enjoyed faster wage gains than every other income group. The net wealth held by the bottom half of households has grown by 47 percent—more than three times the rate of increase for the top 1 percent of households.
Proclamations from adolf-lovers without evidence (links) ....what a shocker.
Truth is overall mean average gains in wages are LARGELY thanks to raises in minimum wages - instituted by mayors and/or Governors - NOT the fed. In fact trump OPPOSES these raises.
Another truth is, if in a given year the millionaires didn't see a single penny more in wages,
but the $7.50/hr federal minimum wage earner got a .50 increase to $8.00/hr, (still only half a living wage)
Republicans would proclaim the wonderful BENEVOLENCE of almighty trump saving the poor
because they got ALL the wage increases and the rich got nothing, so the poor should be grateful.
DELIVERING REAL GAINS FOR FAMILIES: American families are benefiting from President Trump’s pro-growth policies. Real household wealth has increased by nearly $12 trillion since the start of 2017. The President’s historic efforts to cut costly regulations are projected to increase household incomes by $3,100 a year. The domestic energy boom is resulting in real savings for families. The shale energy revolution saves American families an average of $2,500 a year. The President is expanding affordable healthcare and child care options for families. Eliminating the individual mandate penalty, expanding Association Health Plans, and expanding short-term plans are expected to generate $450 billion in economic benefits. Doubling the Child Tax Credit has saved nearly 40 million families an average of $2,200.
More crap without supporting evidence to validate it.
Quote Originally Posted by chadebennett:
DELIVERING REAL GAINS FOR FAMILIES: American families are benefiting from President Trump’s pro-growth policies. Real household wealth has increased by nearly $12 trillion since the start of 2017. The President’s historic efforts to cut costly regulations are projected to increase household incomes by $3,100 a year. The domestic energy boom is resulting in real savings for families. The shale energy revolution saves American families an average of $2,500 a year. The President is expanding affordable healthcare and child care options for families. Eliminating the individual mandate penalty, expanding Association Health Plans, and expanding short-term plans are expected to generate $450 billion in economic benefits. Doubling the Child Tax Credit has saved nearly 40 million families an average of $2,200.
More crap without supporting evidence to validate it.
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by gambleholic63: To further my point, I wonder how many $4,000 per month health insurance premium checks you had to write in the years immediately following the passage of the ACA? Many of my friends and their families were faced with the harsh reality that they either pony up the 4K a month or suffer the consequences of an illness bankrupting their future. So...how many monthly 4k checks did you have to write? To my eyes, it seems so much easier to support destructive economic policies when you are on the receiving end. So....how many monthly checks? I'm waiting. I have a family of 4 and never had to dole out 4k a month during Obama's time, so I have no idea what kind of coverage they required or their health backgrounds. Sounds like they must have had some serious health concerns. So, some of your friends had to pay high costs, so you hate the ACA?? Nice argument. Didn't impact you in any way? Love the friends argument. Talk about weak. Deezy. This is where your mind is disconnected from what was happening in the real world. Obviously, we all have different families and friends and we all live in different financial and economic circles. I can assure you, as I am sure Rush can chime in on, that people were getting hosed by the ACA. I'm surprised you are oblivious to the fact, but this is where you and I have a tremendous disconnect. Rush...please chime in with some of the experiences you witnessed so Deezy can wake up and smell the coffee.
And you are wrong to assume it didn't affect me. I owned my own business for 30 years prior to my retirement this year. My rates doubled in the very first year of the ACA. So yes, it did affect me.
That's the problem with you low wage earners. You want EVERYTHING subsidized but are delusional as to where the money actually comes from.
Gamble for entertainment, invest for wealth!
Quote Originally Posted by gambleholic63:
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by gambleholic63: To further my point, I wonder how many $4,000 per month health insurance premium checks you had to write in the years immediately following the passage of the ACA? Many of my friends and their families were faced with the harsh reality that they either pony up the 4K a month or suffer the consequences of an illness bankrupting their future. So...how many monthly 4k checks did you have to write? To my eyes, it seems so much easier to support destructive economic policies when you are on the receiving end. So....how many monthly checks? I'm waiting. I have a family of 4 and never had to dole out 4k a month during Obama's time, so I have no idea what kind of coverage they required or their health backgrounds. Sounds like they must have had some serious health concerns. So, some of your friends had to pay high costs, so you hate the ACA?? Nice argument. Didn't impact you in any way? Love the friends argument. Talk about weak. Deezy. This is where your mind is disconnected from what was happening in the real world. Obviously, we all have different families and friends and we all live in different financial and economic circles. I can assure you, as I am sure Rush can chime in on, that people were getting hosed by the ACA. I'm surprised you are oblivious to the fact, but this is where you and I have a tremendous disconnect. Rush...please chime in with some of the experiences you witnessed so Deezy can wake up and smell the coffee.
And you are wrong to assume it didn't affect me. I owned my own business for 30 years prior to my retirement this year. My rates doubled in the very first year of the ACA. So yes, it did affect me.
That's the problem with you low wage earners. You want EVERYTHING subsidized but are delusional as to where the money actually comes from.
Quote Originally Posted by chadebennett: LIFTING UP ALL AMERICANS:
False False False. Sources?
Fubah and I have posted numerous articles from Forbes, Pew Research, Washington Post, and more, which pretty much refute all of this. Wage and Wealth inequality are growing not shrinking, which means lower wager earners are not earning more at a faster pace than the wealthy. it is actually the opposite, which is why the gap is growing.
It's easy to make up stuff.
Harder to support wild asseretions with verifiable facts and links to sources.
Usually, crap like that are "opinions" from far-right pundits with an agenda, and usually without merit.
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by chadebennett: LIFTING UP ALL AMERICANS:
False False False. Sources?
Fubah and I have posted numerous articles from Forbes, Pew Research, Washington Post, and more, which pretty much refute all of this. Wage and Wealth inequality are growing not shrinking, which means lower wager earners are not earning more at a faster pace than the wealthy. it is actually the opposite, which is why the gap is growing.
It's easy to make up stuff.
Harder to support wild asseretions with verifiable facts and links to sources.
Usually, crap like that are "opinions" from far-right pundits with an agenda, and usually without merit.
This isn't helping your weak argument. This was already responded to by Fubah and I with actual numbers and data refuting it from the U.S. Government! 
Hot Forum Topics
