Trump Tariffs = Tax Hike on all

[CAA Flagship]

Bullshit, we love booming economies. Just havent had one since Reagan.



Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I believe we had a booming economy during Slick Willy's presidency.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

We have been through this before. That was a tech boom. A whole new, very broad, industry that grew from nearly nothing. Computers, servers, software, internet, cell phones, processors, etc. We won't see anything like it for the rest of our lifetimes.

[CAA Flagship]

OR.........it suggests that there was a lot of buying to try to beat the escalating tariffs.

Any evidence to back that up? I am sure there is some of that, but no one is going to buy items they might use 2 years down the road - the American economy is not set for that, with the Just in Time mantra drilled in everyone's head. We pre-bought steel for buildings that were going to be started in the next few months before the first wave of tariffs, but no possible way for a building that is just breaking ground now.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diploma ... pments-due

Chinese exporters are front-loading their shipments due to changes in the international trade environment, China’s commerce ministry spokesman Gao Feng said on Thursday amid rising trade tensions with the United States.

[dbackjon]

The role reversal and hypocracy over trade is funny. If Obama had done this, Donks would have been proclaiming his genius in sticking up for American workers while Conks would have been running screaming that it was the end of civilization.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Bullshit, we love booming economies. Just havent had one since Reagan.



Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I guess you were too busy hanging out by the Men's room in Red's to notice the Obama years

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Bullshit, we love booming economies. Just havent had one since Reagan.



Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I guess you were too busy hanging out by the Men's room in Red's to notice the Obama years

I didnt even notice those two Obama dudes were even elected.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

I believe we had a booming economy during Slick Willy's presidency.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

We have been through this before. That was a tech boom. A whole new, very broad, industry that grew from nearly nothing. Computers, servers, software, internet, cell phones, processors, etc. We won't see anything like it for the rest of our lifetimes.

I know, I lived through it. I worked for a consulting company that was billing me out at $300/hour for 10 hours/day. When I wasn't with a client I was playing foosball and golden tee. It was a blast.

But it was most definitely a boom which refutes AG's comment that we hadn't had a boom since Reagan.

[Chizzang]

We have been through this before. That was a tech boom. A whole new, very broad, industry that grew from nearly nothing. Computers, servers, software, internet, cell phones, processors, etc. We won't see anything like it for the rest of our lifetimes.

I know, I lived through it. I worked for a consulting company that was billing me out at $300/hour for 10 hours/day. When I wasn't with a client I was playing foosball and golden tee. It was a blast.

But it was most definitely a boom which refutes AG's comment that we hadn't had a boom since Reagan.

The stock market went up from 1982 to 2001 with the exception of the 1987 single month dive of 500 points



During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the wealthiest one-fifth of American households—those who naturally owned the most stock—saw their incomes increase by 14%. Meanwhile, the poorest one-fifth—who presumably owned no stock—endured an income decline of 24%, while the incomes of the middle three-fifths of American families stayed more or less flat.

This uneven pattern represented a marked departure from the earlier economic expansions of the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, which had generated smaller returns for investors but raised income levels across all classes of society.


https://www.shmoop.com/reagan-era/economy.html

[CAA Flagship]

I know, I lived through it. I worked for a consulting company that was billing me out at $300/hour for 10 hours/day. When I wasn't with a client I was playing foosball and golden tee. It was a blast.

But it was most definitely a boom which refutes AG's comment that we hadn't had a boom since Reagan.

The stock market went up from 1982 to 2001 with the exception of the 1987 single month dive of 500 points



During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the wealthiest one-fifth of American households—those who naturally owned the most stock—saw their incomes increase by 14%. Meanwhile, the poorest one-fifth—who presumably owned no stock—endured an income decline of 24%, while the incomes of the middle three-fifths of American families stayed more or less flat.

This uneven pattern represented a marked departure from the earlier economic expansions of the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, which had generated smaller returns for investors but raised income levels across all classes of society.


https://www.shmoop.com/reagan-era/economy.html

I would be interested to see the same stats for the Clinton era. Was it similar?
Also the Obama era.

[Chizzang]

The stock market went up from 1982 to 2001 with the exception of the 1987 single month dive of 500 points



During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the wealthiest one-fifth of American households—those who naturally owned the most stock—saw their incomes increase by 14%. Meanwhile, the poorest one-fifth—who presumably owned no stock—endured an income decline of 24%, while the incomes of the middle three-fifths of American families stayed more or less flat.

This uneven pattern represented a marked departure from the earlier economic expansions of the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, which had generated smaller returns for investors but raised income levels across all classes of society.


https://www.shmoop.com/reagan-era/economy.html

I would be interested to see the same stats for the Clinton era. Was it similar?
Also the Obama era.

For sure...
I believe the poor are falling behind in terms of actual money
but they are certainly supported by programs

it feels like we're drifting in the wrong direction to me and I don;t understand what the answer is
making rich people more rich isn't filtering down (at all)

Not sure what the answer is

[Ibanez]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/13/ustr-re ... urity.html

The United States Trade Representative office said Tuesday that new tariffs on certain consumer items would be delayed until Dec. 15, while other products were being removed from the new China tariff list altogether. It cited health and security factors.

flinch verb
\ ˈflinch \
flinched; flinching; flinches
Definition of flinch
intransitive verb

: to withdraw or shrink from or as if from pain : WINCE
He flinched when he was presented with the car repair bill.
also : to tense the muscles involuntarily in anticipation of discomfort
I cannot help flinching when I hear the dentist's drill.

[CAA Flagship]

I would be interested to see the same stats for the Clinton era. Was it similar?
Also the Obama era.

For sure...
I believe the poor are falling behind in terms of actual money
but they are certainly supported by programs

it feels like we're drifting in the wrong direction to me and I don;t understand what the answer is
making rich people more rich isn't filtering down (at all)

Not sure what the answer is

In most cases, it takes money to make money. And much of the money is made from investments. I don't see any easy pathway to change that.

The thing about the wealthy is that they support a segment of the economy that can't be supported by lower income groups. Industries like boats, jewelry, high fashion, high end products such as liquor, limo service, fine restaurants, country club memberships, etc. That's a lot of jobs associated with these industries. Redistribution would significantly reduce the jobs in these areas that would not be made up in lower cost industries because of increased business from the former wealthy people.

The income numbers really need to separate out investment income. It's the apples compared to the oranges when discussing "fairness".

And, yeah, I don't have any answers for this either.

[BDKJMU]

I would be interested to see the same stats for the Clinton era. Was it similar?
Also the Obama era.

For sure...
I believe the poor are falling behind in terms of actual money
but they are certainly supported by programs

it feels like we're drifting in the wrong direction to me and I don;t understand what the answer is
making rich people more rich isn't filtering down (at all)

Not sure what the answer is

Are the poor falling behind in terms of actual material things though compared to say pre Reagan/40 years ago?
Who cares how much richer the rich get, as long as the poor and middle class don’t drop in terms of material things.

[UNI88]

I would be interested to see the same stats for the Clinton era. Was it similar?
Also the Obama era.

For sure...
I believe the poor are falling behind in terms of actual money
but they are certainly supported by programs

it feels like we're drifting in the wrong direction to me and I don;t understand what the answer is
making rich people more rich isn't filtering down (at all)

Not sure what the answer is

I agree with you but I also have to ask how much of this is because of choices made by the poor? Do they value education as much as they did in the past? Where are they spending their disposable income? Are they investing it or spending it on material goods (iPhones, sneakers, electronics, nice cars, etc.) that depreciate rather than helping build wealth?

I don't know what the answer is either but I'm pretty sure that the gap isn't growing just because the wealth isn't trickling down.

[Chizzang]

For sure...
I believe the poor are falling behind in terms of actual money
but they are certainly supported by programs

it feels like we're drifting in the wrong direction to me and I don;t understand what the answer is
making rich people more rich isn't filtering down (at all)

Not sure what the answer is

I agree with you but I also have to ask how much of this is because of choices made by the poor? Do they value education as much as they did in the past? Where are they spending their disposable income? Are they investing it or spending it on material goods (iPhones, sneakers, electronics, nice cars, etc.) that depreciate rather than helping build wealth?

I don't know what the answer is either but I'm pretty sure that the gap isn't growing just because the wealth isn't trickling down.

50 years ago the CEO made 16 x the average employee
Today they make 375 x more...

even Fortune Magazine and Forbes Magazine (both owned by billionaires) called that obscene

[AZGrizFan]

I agree with you but I also have to ask how much of this is because of choices made by the poor? Do they value education as much as they did in the past? Where are they spending their disposable income? Are they investing it or spending it on material goods (iPhones, sneakers, electronics, nice cars, etc.) that depreciate rather than helping build wealth?

I don't know what the answer is either but I'm pretty sure that the gap isn't growing just because the wealth isn't trickling down.

50 years ago the CEO made 16 x the average employee
Today they make 375 x more...

even Fortune Magazine and Forbes Magazine (both owned by billionaires) called that obscene

There are a handful of companies that skew that "statistic" (and I use that term VERY loosely) horribly. But go ahead with your witch hunt.

[Chizzang]

50 years ago the CEO made 16 x the average employee
Today they make 375 x more...

even Fortune Magazine and Forbes Magazine (both owned by billionaires) called that obscene

There are a handful of companies that skew that "statistic" (and I use that term VERY loosely) horribly. But go ahead with your witch hunt.

Dude... exhale (you're middle class)
Nobody cares

And those numbers are average numbers and they are worth understanding
we've got problems and they are worth trying to understand and it's not a witch hunt you Trump Tard
That's his favorite thing to say when anybody makes a point he doesn't like

[AZGrizFan]

There are a handful of companies that skew that "statistic" (and I use that term VERY loosely) horribly. But go ahead with your witch hunt.

Dude... exhale (you're middle class)
Nobody cares

And those numbers are average numbers and they are worth understanding
we've got problems and they are worth trying to understand and it's not a witch hunt you Trump Tard
That's his favorite thing to say when anybody makes a point he doesn't like

Your "statistic" wasn't a point, it was an abomination. 99% of CEO's make nowhere near 375x their average employee. Not even close. But go ahead, keep digging.

[UNI88]

I agree with you but I also have to ask how much of this is because of choices made by the poor? Do they value education as much as they did in the past? Where are they spending their disposable income? Are they investing it or spending it on material goods (iPhones, sneakers, electronics, nice cars, etc.) that depreciate rather than helping build wealth?

I don't know what the answer is either but I'm pretty sure that the gap isn't growing just because the wealth isn't trickling down.

50 years ago the CEO made 16 x the average employee
Today they make 375 x more...

even Fortune Magazine and Forbes Magazine (both owned by billionaires) called that obscene

You're missing the bigger point - in many instances, the poor share some responsibility for their financial situation.

Like I said, I don't know what the answer is but it isn't just about taking money away from the uber rich.

And I'm on record criticizing CEO pay at Fortune 500 and similar companies. It's an incestuous relationship between CEO's and their Boards that focuses on short-term market gains and leads to huge bonuses but does little to build the company for the long-term.

[Chizzang]

Dude... exhale (you're middle class)
Nobody cares

And those numbers are average numbers and they are worth understanding
we've got problems and they are worth trying to understand and it's not a witch hunt you Trump Tard
That's his favorite thing to say when anybody makes a point he doesn't like

Your "statistic" wasn't a point, it was an abomination. 99% of CEO's make nowhere near 375x their average employee. Not even close. But go ahead, keep digging.

How could a regular fact be an abomination..?
Here's an abomination for you - the fact that this is an argument is why this country is absolutely fucked
when a middle class stooge like you defends the billionaires and does their dirty work
we're fucked

The good news for you Mr. Trump Jr.
The killing of Dodd-Frank removed the mandatory disclosure of C-Level Salaries
So we can all go back to guessing



adjusted for inflation, middle class wages have stagnated for more than 50 years...
Meanwhile, CEO’s average pay since the 1950s has grown by 1000%.

I've copied a link from that left wing witch hunt group Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahembr ... d11ce8776d

[CAA Flagship]

Your "statistic" wasn't a point, it was an abomination. 99% of CEO's make nowhere near 375x their average employee. Not even close. But go ahead, keep digging.

How could a regular fact be an abomination..?
Here's an abomination for you - the fact that this is an argument is why this country is absolutely fucked
when a middle class stooge like you defends the billionaires and does their dirty work
we're fucked

The good news for you Mr. Trump Jr.
The killing of Dodd-Frank removed the mandatory disclosure of C-Level Salaries
So we can all go back to guessing



adjusted for inflation, middle class wages have stagnated for more than 50 years...
Meanwhile, CEO’s average pay since the 1950s has grown by 1000%.

I've copied a link from that left wing witch hunt group Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahembr ... d11ce8776d

The article talks about total compensation. I wonder how much of that are stock options that are worthless unless the stock price goes higher.

[Chizzang]

How could a regular fact be an abomination..?
Here's an abomination for you - the fact that this is an argument is why this country is absolutely fucked
when a middle class stooge like you defends the billionaires and does their dirty work
we're fucked

The good news for you Mr. Trump Jr.
The killing of Dodd-Frank removed the mandatory disclosure of C-Level Salaries
So we can all go back to guessing



adjusted for inflation, middle class wages have stagnated for more than 50 years...
Meanwhile, CEO’s average pay since the 1950s has grown by 1000%.

I've copied a link from that left wing witch hunt group Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahembr ... d11ce8776d

The article talks about total compensation. I wonder how much of that are stock options that are worthless unless the stock price goes higher.

Fraud, failure and bankruptcy pay well for CEOs...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fraud ... 2013-08-28

[CAA Flagship]

How could a regular fact be an abomination..?
Here's an abomination for you - the fact that this is an argument is why this country is absolutely fucked
when a middle class stooge like you defends the billionaires and does their dirty work
we're fucked

The good news for you Mr. Trump Jr.
The killing of Dodd-Frank removed the mandatory disclosure of C-Level Salaries
So we can all go back to guessing



adjusted for inflation, middle class wages have stagnated for more than 50 years...
Meanwhile, CEO’s average pay since the 1950s has grown by 1000%.

I've copied a link from that left wing witch hunt group Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahembr ... d11ce8776d

From the Forbes article, this statement has waaaay too little information.

The CEO of Mondelēz International, which makes Nabisco products, including Chips Ahoy, Oreos, and Ritz Crackers, makes 403 times its median employees’ pay: CEO Irene Rosenfeld received $17.3 in 2017, according to an SEC disclosure. But in what might be an example of the gender gap in CEO pay, Mondelēz’s new CEO, Dirk Van de Put made more than $42.4 million in total compensation in 2017 – more than 989 times the company’s median pay for employees.

The author is an idiot for writing this. She may be right in her assertion, but she gives no statistical proof that the pay rates were different. And of course, does not mention the source of the income - salary, options, bonuses, etc. For starters, both are in 2017. WTF? How many months for each?

[Chizzang]

How could a regular fact be an abomination..?
Here's an abomination for you - the fact that this is an argument is why this country is absolutely fucked
when a middle class stooge like you defends the billionaires and does their dirty work
we're fucked

The good news for you Mr. Trump Jr.
The killing of Dodd-Frank removed the mandatory disclosure of C-Level Salaries
So we can all go back to guessing



adjusted for inflation, middle class wages have stagnated for more than 50 years...
Meanwhile, CEO’s average pay since the 1950s has grown by 1000%.

I've copied a link from that left wing witch hunt group Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahembr ... d11ce8776d

From the Forbes article, this statement has waaaay too little information.

The CEO of Mondelēz International, which makes Nabisco products, including Chips Ahoy, Oreos, and Ritz Crackers, makes 403 times its median employees’ pay: CEO Irene Rosenfeld received $17.3 in 2017, according to an SEC disclosure. But in what might be an example of the gender gap in CEO pay, Mondelēz’s new CEO, Dirk Van de Put made more than $42.4 million in total compensation in 2017 – more than 989 times the company’s median pay for employees.

The author is an idiot for writing this. She may be right in her assertion, but she gives no statistical proof that the pay rates were different. And of course, does not mention the source of the income - salary, options, bonuses, etc. For starters, both are in 2017. WTF? How many months for each?

Hey I enjoy that you think it's noble to defend those that couldn't give a flying fuck about you
I mean really - congratulations - you're doing the real work...

Defending the indefensible
and explaining the inexplicable

For those that would back their chauffeured Bugatti over your corpse
and laugh



BTW:
The girlfriend is going to take that directors position in Minneapolis

[AZGrizFan]

Your "statistic" wasn't a point, it was an abomination. 99% of CEO's make nowhere near 375x their average employee. Not even close. But go ahead, keep digging.

How could a regular fact be an abomination..?
Here's an abomination for you - the fact that this is an argument is why this country is absolutely fucked
when a middle class stooge like you defends the billionaires and does their dirty work
we're fucked

The good news for you Mr. Trump Jr.
The killing of Dodd-Frank removed the mandatory disclosure of C-Level Salaries
So we can all go back to guessing



adjusted for inflation, middle class wages have stagnated for more than 50 years...
Meanwhile, CEO’s average pay since the 1950s has grown by 1000%.

I've copied a link from that left wing witch hunt group Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahembr ... d11ce8776d

First off, you’re incorrect about the salary disclosures.
Second off, I’m not defending the millionaires. Simply stating the fact that using that particular statistic to make your weak ass point just shows desperation. Take out the top 50 CEO’s salary and the number becomes much more realistic. But it’s not as “newsworthy”. My salary as CEO was about 8x the “average” of my employees, and about 10x the lowest paid employee. That’s far more the norm than your bloated number.

[HI54UNI]

From the Forbes article, this statement has waaaay too little information.



The author is an idiot for writing this. She may be right in her assertion, but she gives no statistical proof that the pay rates were different. And of course, does not mention the source of the income - salary, options, bonuses, etc. For starters, both are in 2017. WTF? How many months for each?

Hey I enjoy that you think it's noble to defend those that couldn't give a flying fuck about you
I mean really - congratulations - you're doing the real work...

Defending the indefensible
and explaining the inexplicable

For those that would back their chauffeured Bugatti over your corpse
and laugh



BTW:
The girlfriend is going to take that directors position in Minneapolis

Congrats to the GF! Enjoy freezing your nuts off this winter.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

What nuts?