Oh, you mean Harry Reid's fiscal cliff. More liberal ineptitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by X-man
Printable View
Oh, you mean Harry Reid's fiscal cliff. More liberal ineptitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by X-man
Trader here: no shit. That's why I didn't blame the correction on Trump. If someone thinks Trump did not help the market in anyway they're an idiot. If someone thinks Trump is single-handedly responsible for the continuation of the longest bull market in US history, they're an idiot. The point still stands, if you're going to give him credit for everything that boosts the market (buybacks, raised corporate earnings, low rates, oh I don't know hard working Americans) then you should be ready to blame him for anything that hurts it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
There's a million factors, tangible and intangible that go into the stock market. Sometimes the market rips and plummets for no reason at all. Try to simplify or politicize it at your own demise. You're clearly smart of enough to know this, but somehow petulant enough to insist everyone join you on your knees in praise of this man. He has given consumer confidence to populations which were lacking it. He's helped corporations with tax reform and regulation cutback. There are other sides and risks to every move he makes. Crediting him with anything more, especially in regards to valuation, is purely political bull.
Yup. Presidents should get credit/blame , but get too much credit/blame in good times and bad. The economy happens sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caf
I think he reflects poorly on us as a nation. Especially given the amount of international travel I do for work and comments from my international colleagues. The way he treats women and supports white nationalism is a problemQuote:
Originally Posted by Xville
Dole
Bush
Bush
Obama
Obama
Clinton
DoleQuote:
Originally Posted by Smails
Bush
Bush
Obama
Obama
Clinton (begrudgingly) would have voted Republican for any other candidate
Countries have hated the us since its inception, I dont give a flying f what most countries think of us, in fact if our allies dont like us, in many ways that's better because it means that the allies who have been riding our coattails for far too long in multiple ways have finally had to pay their fair share and they hate that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrett
And I get it, we need allies and though we may "look bad" to them, they will always be there because they need us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenerationX
I am unable to read the WSJ article, but the first link seems to mostly align with my understanding. The following section seems to sum it up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Billy Pratt
But middle-class incomes have not grown at the rate of upper-tier incomes. From 1970 to 2018, the median middle-class income increased from $58,100 to $86,600, a gain of 49%.10 This was considerably less than the 64% increase for upper-income households, whose median income increased from $126,100 in 1970 to $207,400 in 2018. Households in the lower-income tier experienced a gain of 43%, from $20,000 in 1970 to $28,700 in 2018. (Incomes are expressed in 2018 dollars.)
More tepid growth in the income of middle-class households and the reduction in the share of households in the middle-income tier led to a steep fall in the share of U.S. aggregate income held by the middle class. From 1970 to 2018, the share of aggregate income going to middle-class households fell from 62% to 43%. Over the same period, the share held by upper-income households increased from 29% to 48%. The share flowing to lower-income households inched down from 10% in 1970 to 9% in 2018.
These trends in income reflect the growth in economic inequality overall in the U.S. in the decades since 1980.
Income growth has been most rapid for the top 5% of families
Even among higher-income families, the growth in income has favored those at the top. Since 1980, incomes have increased faster for the most affluent families those in the top 5% than for families in the income strata below them. This disparity in outcomes is less pronounced in the wake of the Great Recession but shows no signs of reversing.
From 1981 to 1990, the change in mean family income ranged from a loss of 0.1% annually for families in the lowest quintile (the bottom 20% of earners) to a gain of 2.1% annually for families in the highest quintile (the top 20%). The top 5% of families, who are part of the highest quintile, fared even better their income increased at the rate of 3.2% annually from 1981 to 1990. Thus, the 1980s marked the beginning of a long and steady rise in income inequality.
Since 1981, the incomes of the top 5% of earners have increased faster than the incomes of other families
A similar pattern prevailed in the 1990s, with even sharper growth in income at the top. From 1991 to 2000, the mean income of the top 5% of families grew at an annual average rate of 4.1%, compared with 2.7% for families in the highest quintile overall, and about 1% or barely more for other families.
The period from 2001 to 2010 is unique in the post-WWII era. Families in all strata experienced a loss in income in this decade, with those in the poorer strata experiencing more pronounced losses. The pattern in income growth from 2011 to 2018 is more balanced than the previous three decades, with gains more broadly shared across poorer and better-off families. Nonetheless, income growth remains tilted to the top, with families in the top 5% experiencing greater gains than other families since 2011.
And the unemployment levels are low, but if people still struggle to make ends meet, its not necessarily an indicator of a good economy for everyone.
It's not a good time in this country for many groups of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrett
I do find it interesting that there seems to be a belief (by some) that every single person in this country should be doing better, should be taken care of and should be enjoying the benefits of the current strong economy. It's not possible and it's never has been a goal of any administration. Liberal or conservative. If a dem was in the white house now, they would win in a land slide this November. Historically, a US president running for reelection has never lost when the economic conditions have been strong.
Personally, I believe if you want more for yourself, go out and earn it. This country has plenty of opportunities for ALL.
You can find an issue and create a narrative if that's your goal. I don't get it and never will.
So his nationalism is only for whites? Care to expand upon that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrett
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk