Trump Administration Accomplishments In Just 24 Months - SIMPLY AMAZING.

a reply to: uncommitted

Let’s be clear. Obama didn’t leave behind a solid financial platform. How can you even propose this? He bailed out the banks and f’ed the population, and by extension the rest of the world. The banks caused massive issues and social upheaval and he chose to make the working class pay for the bankers mistakes. That is what austerity is, it’s workers paying for bankers mistakes, and it’s eating the world nation by nation, and will come here as well. Probably with trumps help.

To recap, Obama let the guys responsible have 9 trillion dollars, he sacrificed our workers to pay off that debt, and he didn’t even regulate the actions that caused it in the first place! So now it will happen again, worse. And there’s trump, when we have a contracting economy, giving more money away to those who need it least, and again, setting the stage so when the next collapse happens in 2 years they will come after your ss, liquidate your pensions, and jack all your deposited funds in a banker bail-in, to secure the profits of the rich. Just like last time.

originally posted by: highvein
Your being disingenuous.

No, the people claiming that our soldiers who became President without being previously elected officials somehow makes them political are being disingenuous. Even the Original Poster realized the error of his wicked ways and changed his wording.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: chr0naut

Yep. The tangibles are great right now. The retail numbers from christmas knocked it out of the park. The job openings and growth within most sectors have been great. The only places that have fared poorly are FAANG and even those have seen a modest recovery. Industrials and energy have led the way on the recent recovery which are strong "real world" sectors.

Christmas sales are a representation of consumer confidence, which as I said, may be a precursor of a crash.

It seems to depend on whose statistics you look at.

General Motors and Ford have closed plants and plan to close more.
The Dow took a big downturn just before Christmas.
Job growth has also slowed as of November.
The S&P Energy Sector performance dropped by 173 points from October 8 to Dec 24.
S&P Industrials dropped by 162 points from Oct 3 to Dec 24.

One could argue that military experience is government experience. Kind of...At least it gets you used to giant bureaucracies.


a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You know very little about the army it would seem.

The skills are transferrable.... Fact.

originally posted by: chris_stibrany

One could argue that military experience is government experience.

One could, one could also be stretching reality when it comes to comparing that to politics.

originally posted by: ManyMasks
You know very little about the army it would seem.

The skills are transferrable.... Fact.

You know very little, period.

All skills from all jobs can be transferable. That isn't the discussion.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Steveogold
a reply to: chr0naut

why did you even post that was just daft seriously

Sarcasm.

Trump was claiming an upturn in the economy even before he took office.

You can only bolster the confidence based upon PR for so long. Then reality hits home and everyone realizes that it has to do with actual sales, actual cost of goods and actual rates of manufacture.

Things have been good for a while, but do you expect that they will stay that way?

All the normal cyclical indicators are there and many pundits have predicted an economic crash happening in 2019, and one of the precursors of every other crash has been a preceding market overconfidence, which is what we are seeing now.

Not to mention how a government shutdown will affect things, just as there were the first indications of significant falls in stock values beginning 3rd December last year.

Currently, no-one really knows the actual full economic impact of the shutdown but the indicators aren't good.

Government shutdown begins to harm US economy - Financial Times, Jan 16, 2019

When the fed is raising interests rates higher and faster than they need to be, that will happen.

One last spiteful play by the deep state.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Steveogold
a reply to: chr0naut

why did you even post that was just daft seriously

Sarcasm.

Trump was claiming an upturn in the economy even before he took office.

You can only bolster the confidence based upon PR for so long. Then reality hits home and everyone realizes that it has to do with actual sales, actual cost of goods and actual rates of manufacture.

Things have been good for a while, but do you expect that they will stay that way?

All the normal cyclical indicators are there and many pundits have predicted an economic crash happening in 2019, and one of the precursors of every other crash has been a preceding market overconfidence, which is what we are seeing now.

Not to mention how a government shutdown will affect things, just as there were the first indications of significant falls in stock values beginning 3rd December last year.

Currently, no-one really knows the actual full economic impact of the shutdown but the indicators aren't good.

Government shutdown begins to harm US economy - Financial Times, Jan 16, 2019

When the fed is raising interests rates higher and faster than they need to be, that will happen.

One last spiteful play by the deep state.

You do realize that the 'deep state' would be hurt more by governmental economic turmoil, than the POTUS?

It's like :

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: uncommitted

Let’s be clear. Obama didn’t leave behind a solid financial platform. How can you even propose this? He bailed out the banks and f’ed the population, and by extension the rest of the world. The banks caused massive issues and social

You need to review history.

I would start with first googling when the Bank Bailouts occurred.

Hint:

The Act was proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the global financial crisis of 2008 and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: chr0naut

And here we are a month later and those are leading the charge back.

a reply to: Extorris

Yep, this is why the tea party was formed. Republicans pissed off at the establishment for not sticking to conservative, free market principles.

a reply to: carewemust

This reminds me of Reagan, the media was against him, tax cuts, foreign policy, budgets, for years. Before they started changing their tune on the guy.

a reply to: matafuchs

Why are you assuming I am even an American or that I live in America? Who does that make a jackass?

I don't really want to make you look stupid, but that Forbes article actually proves my point, the swing in employment is due to the work done by the previous administration. Trump was trying to claim credit within days of the electoral college declaring him president.

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: uncommitted

Let’s be clear. Obama didn’t leave behind a solid financial platform. How can you even propose this? He bailed out the banks and f’ed the population, and by extension the rest of the world. The banks caused massive issues and social upheaval and he chose to make the working class pay for the bankers mistakes. That is what austerity is, it’s workers paying for bankers mistakes, and it’s eating the world nation by nation, and will come here as well. Probably with trumps help.

To recap, Obama let the guys responsible have 9 trillion dollars, he sacrificed our workers to pay off that debt, and he didn’t even regulate the actions that caused it in the first place! So now it will happen again, worse. And there’s trump, when we have a contracting economy, giving more money away to those who need it least, and again, setting the stage so when the next collapse happens in 2 years they will come after your ss, liquidate your pensions, and jack all your deposited funds in a banker bail-in, to secure the profits of the rich. Just like last time.

Most non partisan financial commentators would disagree completely with your first sentence, but there aren't many non partisan commentators on ATS.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Wasn't Eisenhower in the government as a soldier?

So was Grant & Taylor.

Augustus is right...soldiering is not an elected position.

Where did it say "elected position" in the OP?

ETA: Also, you consider a general a soldier? Chief of staff a soldier?

a reply to: carewemust

America first. Short term thinking. A sad story develops behind the scenes. Broken promises of predecessors, arms race, leaving allies behind, space race, misery for a lot of people outside the usa, ...
The USA, land of the free, the good leader of the world, shows that it is not trustworthy.
USA frightens allies and gives its enemies reason to make themselves stronger.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: carewemust
Considering that Donald J. Trump is the first U.S. President to NOT have ANY prior government experience...

Taylor? Grant? Eisenhower?

Eisenhower served as Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army from 1945–48. Taylor was a general. So was Grant. If you think these positions aren't heavily involved in the politics of the United States government then you don't know squat about politics.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Eisenhower served as Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army from 1945–48. Taylor was a general. So was Grant. If you think these positions aren't heavily involved in the politics of the United States government then you don't know squat about politics.

They still aren't elected politicians. You're also missing that the Original Poster edited his comments after my first two.