The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[CAA Flagship]

Interest rates.

[AZGrizFan]

I’m not the one who posted the shabbily written article. I’m not the one who made the blanket statement that “business investment has plunged this year”...

Just google “business investment in the US and you’ll see plenty of info regarding how it’s up, why it’s up and what businesses (in general) believe the mid- long-term prognosis is. Hint: It ain’t what he said...

Holy shit!!!

https://www.google.com/search?q=busines ... ent=safari

Yeah, imagine that. Business investment turns downward when there's talk of a recession. The MSM and Dems have been gleefully trying to conjur up a recession for months now to derail Trump's reelection. Here's the rub: the word "PLUNGED." Along with zero factual statements/stats/info to back it up. You don't have a problem with that type of reporting? Great....good for you. Personally I think it's crappy, slanted yellow journalism with an agenda (which is obvious when reading the article).

Guess what? It was up in '17, up in '18 and up in early '19. But don't let facts get in the way of a good tar and feathering.

[SeattleGriz]

Is this going to be the same as when the NYT just admitted that their concept of jobs and the economy were way off? You know, the "new normal" Obama proclaimed jobs weren't coming back and to just get used to the weak economy?

They admitted they were wrong, and that their thinking cost America trillions.

[kalm]

Holy shit!!!

https://www.google.com/search?q=busines ... ent=safari

Yeah, imagine that. Business investment turns downward when there's talk of a recession. The MSM and Dems have been gleefully trying to conjur up a recession for months now to derail Trump's reelection. Here's the rub: the word "PLUNGED." Along with zero factual statements/stats/info to back it up. You don't have a problem with that type of reporting? Great....good for you. Personally I think it's crappy, slanted yellow journalism with an agenda (which is obvious when reading the article).

Guess what? It was up in '17, up in '18 and up in early '19. But don't let facts get in the way of a good tar and feathering.

Ummm...you do know there are different types of journalism? News reporting is typically when they list more detailed stats and sources. Commentary/opinion which is what’s befuddling you here is more story driven with less hard data and citations. If commentators had to constantly back up their assertions those articles would be twice as long and very few would read them.

You’re looking for reporting in a commentary piece.

Btw, according to one the lols your suggested google popped up, Q2 ofvghis year was the sharpest decline in business investment since 2015 and its basically the same now as 2016.

IOW’s the story is still accurate compared with the claims made by Trump and his sycophants.

[SeattleGriz]

Yeah, imagine that. Business investment turns downward when there's talk of a recession. The MSM and Dems have been gleefully trying to conjur up a recession for months now to derail Trump's reelection. Here's the rub: the word "PLUNGED." Along with zero factual statements/stats/info to back it up. You don't have a problem with that type of reporting? Great....good for you. Personally I think it's crappy, slanted yellow journalism with an agenda (which is obvious when reading the article).

Guess what? It was up in '17, up in '18 and up in early '19. But don't let facts get in the way of a good tar and feathering.

Ummm...you do know there are different types of journalism? News reporting is typically when they list more detailed stats and sources. Commentary/opinion which is what’s befuddling you here is more story driven with less hard data and citations. If commentators had to constantly back up their assertions those articles would be twice as long and very few would read them.

You’re looking for reporting in a commentary piece.

Btw, according to one the lols your suggested google popped up, Q2 ofvghis year was the sharpest decline in business investment since 2015 and its basically the same now as 2016.

IOW’s the story is still accurate compared with the claims made by Trump and his sycophants.

My question is this. What does all this mean? What is going to happen to the economy if this isn't corrected?

[UNI88]

I just don't know if we can stand much more great...

Obviously, Milton Friedman didn't realize it would take 8 years to erase the debt...



https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/ ... story.html

I don’t believe any “analysis” coming from that rag. Sorry. He may very well be right, but wrapped around THAT POS, there’s no way I’d believe it.

Why is the Trib a rag? Because of their mostly center-right, never-Trump content? Or because they bought out other papers and slashed staffing to chase profits?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

Yeah, imagine that. Business investment turns downward when there's talk of a recession. The MSM and Dems have been gleefully trying to conjur up a recession for months now to derail Trump's reelection. Here's the rub: the word "PLUNGED." Along with zero factual statements/stats/info to back it up. You don't have a problem with that type of reporting? Great....good for you. Personally I think it's crappy, slanted yellow journalism with an agenda (which is obvious when reading the article).

Guess what? It was up in '17, up in '18 and up in early '19. But don't let facts get in the way of a good tar and feathering.

Ummm...you do know there are different types of journalism? News reporting is typically when they list more detailed stats and sources. Commentary/opinion which is what’s befuddling you here is more story driven with less hard data and citations. If commentators had to constantly back up their assertions those articles would be twice as long and very few would read them.

You’re looking for reporting in a commentary piece.

Btw, according to one the lols your suggested google popped up, Q2 ofvghis year was the sharpest decline in business investment since 2015 and its basically the same now as 2016.

IOW’s the story is still accurate compared with the claims made by Trump and his sycophants.

Yeah, I know nothing about reporting. Only married to a reporter. No big deal.

[kalm]

Ummm...you do know there are different types of journalism? News reporting is typically when they list more detailed stats and sources. Commentary/opinion which is what’s befuddling you here is more story driven with less hard data and citations. If commentators had to constantly back up their assertions those articles would be twice as long and very few would read them.

You’re looking for reporting in a commentary piece.

Btw, according to one the lols your suggested google popped up, Q2 ofvghis year was the sharpest decline in business investment since 2015 and its basically the same now as 2016.

IOW’s the story is still accurate compared with the claims made by Trump and his sycophants.

Yeah, I know nothing about reporting. Only married to a reporter. No big deal.

Judging by your words here you should probably listen to her more.

[AZGrizFan]

Yeah, I know nothing about reporting. Only married to a reporter. No big deal.

Judging by your words here you should probably listen to her more.

[SeattleGriz]

The answer to your points above are "stock Value"
If Boeing scraps the MAX they lose billions and 5 years

but YES they need to scrap the MAX
you can't fix massive physics incompatibilities with "software patches"

They need a "from the ground-up" design of a new aircraft
which they have known for years was the case

One thing to keep in mind, is that the airlines put pressure on Airbus and Boeing to limit required training.

One of the big reasons to just do updates instead of building a new plane.

With that said, Boeing has told us it costs about $10 billion to develop a new aircraft.

This is a big piece of the puzzle. Lack of airmanship.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/maga ... ashes.html

Malfunctions caused two deadly crashes. But an industry that puts unprepared pilots in the cockpit is just as guilty.

[Baldy]

Something for JSO to gnaw on...

Trump stock market rally is far outpacing past US presidents

President Donald Trump’s stock market stacks up well against the majority of his presidential predecessors.

The S&P 500 has returned more than 50% since Trump was elected, more than double the 23% average market return of presidents three years into their term, according to data from Bespoke Investment Group dating to 1928.

The bellwether index gained more than 28% this year, well above the average 12.8% return of year three for past U.S. presidents.

[HI54UNI]

Something for JSO to gnaw on...

Trump stock market rally is far outpacing past US presidents

President Donald Trump’s stock market stacks up well against the majority of his presidential predecessors.

The S&P 500 has returned more than 50% since Trump was elected, more than double the 23% average market return of presidents three years into their term, according to data from Bespoke Investment Group dating to 1928.

The bellwether index gained more than 28% this year, well above the average 12.8% return of year three for past U.S. presidents.

Hey JSO, I'll save you the trouble of typing a dissertation that no one will read.

[houndawg]

Something for JSO to gnaw on...

Trump stock market rally is far outpacing past US presidents

President Donald Trump’s stock market stacks up well against the majority of his presidential predecessors.

The S&P 500 has returned more than 50% since Trump was elected, more than double the 23% average market return of presidents three years into their term, according to data from Bespoke Investment Group dating to 1928.

The bellwether index gained more than 28% this year, well above the average 12.8% return of year three for past U.S. presidents.

Are we back to the stock market being a reliable indicator of the Prez doing a good job? Can we assume that the labor force participation rate doesn't mean much anymore too?

It's so confusing.

[AZGrizFan]

Something for JSO to gnaw on...

Trump stock market rally is far outpacing past US presidents

Are we back to the stock market being a reliable indicator of the Prez doing a good job? Can we assume that the labor force participation rate doesn't mean much anymore too?

It's so confusing.

0-2 today. You might wanna sit the next couple of plays out.

[Chizzang]

Are we back to the stock market being a reliable indicator of the Prez doing a good job? Can we assume that the labor force participation rate doesn't mean much anymore too?

It's so confusing.

The short answer here is: Yes...
The long answer is: Fuck Obama

[AZGrizFan]

Are we back to the stock market being a reliable indicator of the Prez doing a good job? Can we assume that the labor force participation rate doesn't mean much anymore too?

It's so confusing.

The short answer here is: Yes...
The long answer is: Fuck Obama

The long answer is: Fuck JSO.

[93henfan]

3.52% raise for the hard-working federal civilian employees of the national swampital region. Largest raise since GWB in 2009.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversig ... l/DCB.aspx

[Ivytalk]

3.52% raise for the hard-working federal civilian employees of the national swampital region. Largest raise since GWB in 2009.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversig ... l/DCB.aspx

So you’ve now forgiven Drumpf fo the shutdown, about which you bitched mightily. Check.

[AZGrizFan]

3.52% raise for the hard-working federal civilian employees of the national swampital region. Largest raise since GWB in 2009.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversig ... l/DCB.aspx

So you’ve now forgiven Drumpf fo the shutdown, about which you bitched mightily. Check.

[93henfan]

3.52% raise for the hard-working federal civilian employees of the national swampital region. Largest raise since GWB in 2009.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversig ... l/DCB.aspx

So you’ve now forgiven Drumpf fo the shutdown, about which you bitched mightily. Check.

Congress sets the raise. Power of the purse.

[SeattleGriz]

So you’ve now forgiven Drumpf fo the shutdown, about which you bitched mightily. Check.

Congress sets the raise. Power of the purse.

You're a part of the Deep State.

[houndawg]

I don’t believe any “analysis” coming from that rag. Sorry. He may very well be right, but wrapped around THAT POS, there’s no way I’d believe it.

Why is the Trib a rag? Because of their mostly center-right, never-Trump content? Or because they bought out other papers and slashed staffing to chase profits?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

You should start a thread about it

[JohnStOnge]

Could have posted this in several places but this is as good as any. I poke around from time to time for indications of the inevitable point at which some of the adverse consequences of Trump's regulatory reductions are noted. The article at https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html is over a year old. Don't know why I haven't seen it before. But it provides some of the kind of stuff on this issue that I think the Democrats need to bring forward and emphasize.

Here's some language with the type of information I think the Democrats could use:

Nowhere has this been more apparent than at the EPA, an agency that has long set the standard for evaluating the costs and benefits of proposed regulatory moves.

When Trump in 2017 ordered the EPA to scrap President Obama’s landmark initiative to fight climate change by limiting power plant emissions, agency scientists reported the move would cause up to 4,500 premature deaths annually.

The administration’s proposed replacement – known as the Affordable Clean Energy rule -- pushed the projected death toll even higher, according to EPA scientists, who estimated an additional 1,400 premature deaths every year.

The agency also predicted American workers sickened by increased air pollution caused by the added emissions would miss up to 48,000 days of work and sickened children would miss up to 160,000 days of school annually.

I tihnk there is a lot of potential ammunition for Democrats associated with Trump's regulatory reduction bent. Lots of opportunity for using the "Republicans care about profits more than they care about people's lives" stuff. The Democrats just need to organize it and use it.

[AZGrizFan]

Could have posted this in several places but this is as good as any. I poke around from time to time for indications of the inevitable point at which some of the adverse consequences of Trump's regulatory reductions are noted. The article at https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html is over a year old. Don't know why I haven't seen it before. But it provides some of the kind of stuff on this issue that I think the Democrats need to bring forward and emphasize.

Here's some language with the type of information I think the Democrats could use:

Nowhere has this been more apparent than at the EPA, an agency that has long set the standard for evaluating the costs and benefits of proposed regulatory moves.

When Trump in 2017 ordered the EPA to scrap President Obama’s landmark initiative to fight climate change by limiting power plant emissions, agency scientists reported the move would cause up to 4,500 premature deaths annually.

The administration’s proposed replacement – known as the Affordable Clean Energy rule -- pushed the projected death toll even higher, according to EPA scientists, who estimated an additional 1,400 premature deaths every year.

The agency also predicted American workers sickened by increased air pollution caused by the added emissions would miss up to 48,000 days of work and sickened children would miss up to 160,000 days of school annually.

I tihnk there is a lot of potential ammunition for Democrats associated with Trump's regulatory reduction bent. Lots of opportunity for using the "Republicans care about profits more than they care about people's lives" stuff. The Democrats just need to organize it and use it.

ANd has there been any confirmation of these histrionics? Or is it just more government “the sky is falling” bullshit from the deep state?

[HI54UNI]

Could have posted this in several places but this is as good as any. I poke around from time to time for indications of the inevitable point at which some of the adverse consequences of Trump's regulatory reductions are noted. The article at https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html is over a year old. Don't know why I haven't seen it before. But it provides some of the kind of stuff on this issue that I think the Democrats need to bring forward and emphasize.

Here's some language with the type of information I think the Democrats could use:

Nowhere has this been more apparent than at the EPA, an agency that has long set the standard for evaluating the costs and benefits of proposed regulatory moves.

When Trump in 2017 ordered the EPA to scrap President Obama’s landmark initiative to fight climate change by limiting power plant emissions, agency scientists reported the move would cause up to 4,500 premature deaths annually.

The administration’s proposed replacement – known as the Affordable Clean Energy rule -- pushed the projected death toll even higher, according to EPA scientists, who estimated an additional 1,400 premature deaths every year.

The agency also predicted American workers sickened by increased air pollution caused by the added emissions would miss up to 48,000 days of work and sickened children would miss up to 160,000 days of school annually.

I tihnk there is a lot of potential ammunition for Democrats associated with Trump's regulatory reduction bent. Lots of opportunity for using the "Republicans care about profits more than they care about people's lives" stuff. The Democrats just need to organize it and use it.

Show me the bodies.