- Messages
- 44,600
- Reaction score
- 20,070
What's wrong with unisex bathrooms?
They bitch because we didn't put the seat back down.
What's wrong with unisex bathrooms?
11K jobs is not even a rounding error in the rate calculation.
And both sides play the game, they'll talk of Bill Clinton...but WTF did Clinton do to invent the internet and put the US in an unparalleled geopolitical position? Theyll shit on Carter, but his Fed appointments succeeded in straightening the ship in the 1980s for Reagan. Theyll worship Obama, but ignore historically low interest rates, etc.
It's even better around my neck of the woods where the biggest jobs creators have been a new Amazon warehouse and massive First Solar plant. And people will credit Trump for it lolol
Please don't tell us Clinton or Gore invented the internet. This was being developed both in the private sector and the military before they took office. IIRC Gore happened to chair or sit on a committee that controlled the funds. Even though he likes to say he invented the internet, that was just another politician trying to take credit.
I pretty clearly said he doesn't deserve that praise. He doesn't deserve the praise of the Cold War ending either.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">President Joe Biden will sign an executive order Monday aimed at boosting American manufacturing, setting in motion a process to fulfill his campaign pledge to strengthen the federal government's Buy American rules. <a href="https://t.co/aYR0SvcieV">https://t.co/aYR0SvcieV</a></p>— CNN (@CNN) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1353651093771837443?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 25, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Also, this is how you walk-the-walk versus talk-the-talk:![]()
Please don't tell us Clinton or Gore invented the internet. This was being developed both in the private sector and the military before they took office. IIRC Gore happened to chair or sit on a committee that controlled the funds. Even though he likes to say he invented the internet, that was just another politician trying to take credit.
A little off topic, but I don't see Amazon being able to continue this business model. Amazon warehouses are popping up all over the country. They have like 3 or 4 right in the greater Indy area. They churn through employees like crazy. They're like the drummer on the galley ship pushing those slaves to row. It wears on people and there's not an unlimited number of people to fill those positions. They've already raised their wages to entice people to stay, but that's a placebo IMO and a sign their prices will go up.
Looks like you're fairly new here and that's cool, but we've compared the Obama economy to the Trump economy (pre covid) several times in other threads. I don't want to do it again. It's exhausting and depressing lol.
Hint...it's not really close and for the 4th time in two days I'll refer to the numbers I posted a few pages back. You can't argue those. It would be like someone telling you ND went 8-4 this year instead of 10-2.
It's not hard to accept that the US is the most technologically advanced in the world. That doesn't mean it's guaranteed that our economy will grow, that small businesses will continue or thrive, that wages will keep rising, etc.
First, I don't care for the Don. So don't take this as a defense of him. It isn't.
But let's talk the tax situation. I know it's murky and I know there are probably numerous areas that are riddled with favorable deductions that the courts will ultimately decide. So let's focus just on the situation, not who and how they got there.
Cash is cash. When someone invests (M&E, real estate, etc.) it's cash out the door and put into the economy. The amount of cash someone is willing to invest is based on the amount of cash the will receive back over time, whether that is through cost reduction, rent payments, dividends, or in some cases, the avoidance of future losses. The cash generated includes tax implications, including the deductions related to interest and depreciation. When Obama signed the accelerated depreciation into law in 2011/2012, it was estimated that it would reduce federal tax collections by $25B a year (at the time). I think most people would agree, from a purely economic viewpoint, that getting people to churn their investments into the economy is a good thing.
The minimal tax is a byproduct of two things. 1) You have highly leveraged individuals deducting significant amount of interest, which combined with depreciation, generates little or negative tax rates, which will be carried forward. 2) Imbalance in useful life assumptions across industries.
The last one is the true crux of the problem, though #1 is for a different reason. For example, there were special incentives put into a Farm Bill to speed up the depreciation for race horses far beyond what anyone would deem reasonable. As with most things in Washington, it is/was about how $ignificant the lobbying activity is for your chosen industry. I don't think this means our tax system is broken, or that simply raising rates is the solution. It isn't that simple and people will still find a way to dodge them so long as K street exists. That was the brilliance of the 9-9-9 plan. Now, we can debate the merits of sales vs personal income tax. But the simplicity of the tax is what is so attractive. But it was DOA because there is too much $$ spent on lobbying and lining the pockets of all politicians to ever have a change.
As for the issue with #1...it would help quite a bit if we actually allowed businesses to fail. We talk all we can about the employees. It isn't the employees that are bailed it, its the shareholders. If someone / some company is far too leveraged, well, that's on them. Take AMC movie theatres as example. They were far too leveraged and were much more financially aggressive than their peers. They should be held to account.
I feel its exactly the opposite. They are almost at the point of completely taking over. They are basically a more efficient Walmart. They come into an area (with a warehouse capable of same day shipping as opposed to a big box store), undercut local businesses on price undercut suppliers with their own brands, put both suppliers and local businesses out of business, and then they are one of the only jobs hiring so they can keep wages low. Turnover might be high, but its been that way at UPS and Fedex for a long time.
There will be five press briefings this week. The Covid briefings will be three times a week. Ted Cruz still has the most punchable face in the Senate, which is a dubious honor.
Loving C-SPAN again.
![]()
I'm confident in my answer.
I'll just leave this right here and drop the mic and walk away.
![]()
If you can't accept that the United States is the most technologically advanced, developed, and diversified economy in the history of the world, and that our 330+ million citizens will prosper regardless of the guy in the White House...I'll just shake my head and laugh at ya
Just pointing out that the American economy succeeds regardless of who is President. Not really sure what irony you see.
![]()
And yet the economy has grown under every single President. Huh.
I was sticking to the Senate but you have identified the most punchable face in the Swamp
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">President Joe Biden will sign an executive order Monday aimed at boosting American manufacturing, setting in motion a process to fulfill his campaign pledge to strengthen the federal government's Buy American rules. <a href="https://t.co/aYR0SvcieV">https://t.co/aYR0SvcieV</a></p>— CNN (@CNN) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1353651093771837443?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 25, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Also, this is how you walk-the-walk versus talk-the-talk:![]()
Of course, very little of the money finds its way to workers. Instead, the extra cost is largely lost to inefficient production and higher profits collected by firms.
If we took your logic and applied it to football, you'd laugh at yourself. Imagine someone telling you that since Notre Dame football got better under Charlie Weis and then got better under Brian Kelly, there's no real difference between the two coaches and ND football will just continue to be good no matter who's at the helm.
It doesn't work that way with economics either.
Yeah man, a sport in which the head coach is known for having dictatorial control is just a supremely appropriate comparison for a President's marginal impact on a $20 trillion diversified capitalist society lol
<iframe src="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/graph-landing.php?g=z40p&width=670&height=475" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; width:670px; height:525px;" allowTransparency="true" loading="lazy"></iframe>
The underlying theme was that ND football improved under both coaches, but BK has taken the program much further than Weis did.
Here's what that chart doesn't reflect:
unemployment
GDP growth
wage growth
manufacturing growth
stock market growth
We aren't guaranteed anything economically no matter who the president is.
Bilbo Baggins
Buster Bluth
Hmmm....
Just a coincidence that the join date is the same month as the election? Probably not.