L L wrote:
Timothy Foyle wrote:
1/2 FAKE news
1/2 Conspiracy by the DEEP STATE
Convincing others to wear your hat, Tim Foyle?
Not quite sure what you mean by that. Care to elaborate?
L L wrote:
Timothy Foyle wrote:
1/2 FAKE news
1/2 Conspiracy by the DEEP STATE
Convincing others to wear your hat, Tim Foyle?
Not quite sure what you mean by that. Care to elaborate?
Hmmm if only the bottom 50% had some sort of tax cut that would let them keep more of their hard earned money in addition to higher bonuses and wages created by this theoretical tax cut (see atat and others) so they could invest in this historic trump stock market.
Oh wait.....
I think someone struck a nerve.
Calm down, brother before you have a coronary.
Timothy Foyle wrote:
L L wrote:
Convincing others to wear your hat, Tim Foyle?
Not quite sure what you mean by that. Care to elaborate?
You didn't get the Tim Foyle hat reference?
You can't be this stupid?
Let me put it to you in 3rd grade terms, so perhaps you might be able to comprehend it. Would the majority of Americans be better off with a high Stock Market or a low Stock Market?
L L wrote:
Timothy Foyle wrote:
Not quite sure what you mean by that. Care to elaborate?
You didn't get the Tim Foyle hat reference?
You're kidding, right?
Who do you think came up with my handle. Hint: It was me.
Are you saying that you have been completely clueless about all of my posts this whole time? Holy sh!t!
You can't be that stupid, can you?
Do you really think that it is in some way obvious that the majority of Americans are better off if stocks are more highly valued rather than less highly valued? Seriously?
Perhaps you'd care to state your case. This ought to be funny.
Like those who thought Bill Clinton would be forced to resign for lying under oath, that Chaney would go down, HRC would be hurt by Bengazi and her email scandal, or Iran-Contra would affect Reagan, you will find out that it is not going to happen.
You'll find out that your "Mueller Time" will have the effect of a wet noodle.
http://muellerspasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Protein-Spaghetti.jpg
PIO! wrote:
Econ Don wrote:
You can't be this stupid?
Let me put it to you in 3rd grade terms, so perhaps you might be able to comprehend it. Would the majority of Americans be better off with a high Stock Market or a low Stock Market?
You can't be that stupid, can you?
Do you really think that it is in some way obvious that the majority of Americans are better off if stocks are more highly valued rather than less highly valued? Seriously?
Perhaps you'd care to state your case. This ought to be funny.
I find it hilarious that liberals are trying to make the case that a booming economy is not a great thing. We saw this with Reagan. Same old playbook.
Flagpole wrote:
True. More people could be wealthy if they would just invest and invest and invest and not worry about the ups and downs of the market.
Easy for you and me, but that's not the way most people live. Most are living paycheck to paycheck and have lots of credit card debt. If they actually had extra money to put in the market, then they would be making a stupid investment. They'd be better off paying down the high interest credit card debt first.
Nah...that is obsolete thinking that has been proven wrong.
These tax cuts for low-income people are slim to none, and they eventually expire.
There should NEVER be a tax cut that greatly benefits the wealthy while not helping the poor.
There are just a very few companies giving out bonuses they wouldn't have due to these tax cuts, and even for those that are, those companies made a KILLING while giving out pennies to the peasants.
I'm not against big companies making a killing, but the gap is just too great, made greater by this stupid tax cut. MOST companies are doing stock buy backs that help the stock market and their investors. I benefit greatly from this, but I don't need to.
Some more money should have been used to shore up Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid rather than set it up so that mostly wealthy people benefit.
Dude, I never need to calm down. I am ALWAYS as cool as the other side of the pillow.
I will also never have any heart issues as I have a benign condition that all but eliminates the possibility that I will ever have a heart attack or stroke. I'll take it.
This is the same old liberal crap about a booming Republican economy. It didn't work against Reagan and he got re-elected in a 49 state landslide. If we're still arguing about whether or not everyone is getting their share of the bigly yuge economic pie in 2020, then that's basically a Democrat surrender.
Fat hurts wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
True. More people could be wealthy if they would just invest and invest and invest and not worry about the ups and downs of the market.
Easy for you and me, but that's not the way most people live. Most are living paycheck to paycheck and have lots of credit card debt. If they actually had extra money to put in the market, then they would be making a stupid investment. They'd be better off paying down the high interest credit card debt first.
I know there are a lot out there who really can't do it, at least in the near term, but MORE could than do.
Flagpole wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Easy for you and me, but that's not the way most people live. Most are living paycheck to paycheck and have lots of credit card debt. If they actually had extra money to put in the market, then they would be making a stupid investment. They'd be better off paying down the high interest credit card debt first.
I know there are a lot out there who really can't do it, at least in the near term, but MORE could than do.
So, Flaggy, you're the economic guru on this site. Perhaps, you can settle their argument. Is a high stock market good or bad for most people in the US?
Flagpole wrote:
Dr. Oz wrote:
I think someone struck a nerve.
Calm down, brother before you have a coronary.
Dude, I never need to calm down. I am ALWAYS as cool as the other side of the pillow.
I will also never have any heart issues as I have a benign condition that all but eliminates the possibility that I will ever have a heart attack or stroke. I'll take it.
I bet. LOL
I could tell how calm you were when I read your post. Cool as a Scorpion pepper.
Not Currently in Fantasy Land wrote:
Like those who thought Bill Clinton would be forced to resign for lying under oath, that Chaney would go down, HRC would be hurt by Bengazi and her email scandal, or Iran-Contra would affect Reagan, you will find out that it is not going to happen.
You'll find out that your "Mueller Time" will have the effect of a wet noodle.
http://muellerspasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Protein-Spaghetti.jpg
POTD.
That's the Mueller Time that is coming.
DiscoGary wrote:
PIO! wrote:
You can't be that stupid, can you?
Do you really think that it is in some way obvious that the majority of Americans are better off if stocks are more highly valued rather than less highly valued? Seriously?
Perhaps you'd care to state your case. This ought to be funny.
I find it hilarious that liberals are trying to make the case that a booming economy is not a great thing. We saw this with Reagan. Same old playbook.
Tell me, oh wise one. How exactly does a booming economy help everyone. If anything, it hurts the lower class.
Um...Reagan didn't spout racist things and say he grabbed women by the "p*ssy".
Also, a VERY different situation. Jimmy Carter had not only a really bad economy but then the Iran hostage thing to deal with. All that and long gas lines made for people REALLY wanting a change. Reagan WHIPPED Carter in 1976. Trump won by just barely winning in some key states and of course lost the popular vote.
We will see if the economy is humming along by 2020. It might be, but it has been on the right path since 2009. How many of you wish you had a ton of money in the market in March 2009 when the Dow was at 6500? I don't have to wish. I also have been buying all the way up to now, so it has been a great ride...pretty much all of Obama's term and then now one year into Trump's.
Also, people were happy with Reagan, so happy that Iran Contra really didn't hurt him. Trump has historically low approval ratings at this point in his presidency.
Reagan's vice was Jelly Belly jelly beans. Trump boned porn stars and grabbed unsuspecting women by the "p*ssy".
Reagan is rolling over in his grave knowing that Trump has cozied up to the Russians.
No realistic comparison to be made here.
Not Currently in Fantasy Land wrote:
Like those who thought Bill Clinton would be forced to resign for lying under oath, that Chaney would go down, HRC would be hurt by Bengazi and her email scandal, or Iran-Contra would affect Reagan, you will find out that it is not going to happen.
You'll find out that your "Mueller Time" will have the effect of a wet noodle.
http://muellerspasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Protein-Spaghetti.jpg
None of the things you mentioned were anywhere close to as bad as stuff Trump has done.
This is all worse than Nixon. Hillary's e-mail scandal? Really? Kushner and others in the White House have been using private e-mail servers, and no one cares, because the other stuff they've done is SOOOOOO much worse.