Trump Presidency Round 2

[Old Man Mike]

To ab2c: It might come as a surprise to you that everyone isn't the same. I'm 85. Resources are severely FIXED. I have years of retirement economic information on which to predict my future available money. I'm currently sort of healthy, so I might live well into my 90s ON THIS FIXED SUM. If 5+% of that base just vanishes, maybe even you can imagine how that could be really hard on those latter years. AND, I have morons advocating no social security raises, or even cuts. Apparently people like yourself might feel that the most viable solution for YOUR economics is for us to just droop off into lower class living and die earlier. I've calculated my "trends" over and over to try to plan for rising rent, greater health treatment needs, and left field surprises that people like yourself, wanting "to be fair" about my irrational concerns, just believe to be no-sweat for someone like me. Well, it IS an @#$#ing problem for someone like me. Gawd, I can't/won't say what I'd really like to say to people who, ignorantly seem to just not give a damm. ..... whew .... take a breath and ignore this damm site for a while. People seem to think, well, you should have just made more money. Hell, why were you a lifetime teacher. (My average salary was about $40,000 a year over my thirty years.)

 

[ulukinatme]

Not sure how "Trump caved" is the read here, unless I'm missing the sarcasm.

Yup. Looks more like Zelensky backtracked after Trump pulled aid.

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/04/zelensky-trump-ukraine-military-aid-minerals-deal

 

[ulukinatme]

This is false.

It was always defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP, but it got changed under Biden so it wouldn't be a black mark on his record. This was during the record high period of inflation, while Democrats were saying the inflation was transitory and a good thing, touting how great Bidenomics was, and other malarky.

White House Recession “Rebrand” Won’t Reduce Americans’ Suffering - Ways and Means

In its latest attempt to deny the cruel economy they’ve created, the Biden Administration is now redefining recession and downplaying...

waysandmeans.house.gov

 

[Sea Turtle]

Now people are saying that th deal snt happening. Who knows at this point?

I guess we'll find out in his fireside chat tonight.

 

[NDVirginia19]

 

[TorontoGold]

No, the White House didn’t change definition of “recession"

Ahead of a key economic data announcement on July 28, critics of President Joe Biden have taken to social media to lay t

www.politifact.com

 

[BuaConstrictor]

It might come as a surprise to you that everyone isn't the same. I'm 85.

Wait...Old Man Mike..is...old?

For the record, I am not actually a golden snake curled around the feet of Our Lady.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

but it got changed under Biden

No...It didn't.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

No, the White House didn’t change definition of “recession"

Ahead of a key economic data announcement on July 28, critics of President Joe Biden have taken to social media to lay t

www.politifact.com

Do you actually expect them to read all of that?

 

[Irish#1]

I don’t have a problem with this when it’s at his place. If someone is willing to pay that, then the real issue is with their stupidity. Is he the first president to charge for a meeting at his residence?

 

[Armyirish47]

It was always defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP, but it got changed under Biden so it wouldn't be a black mark on his record. This was during the record high period of inflation, while Democrats were saying the inflation was transitory and a good thing, touting how great Bidenomics was, and other malarky.

White House Recession “Rebrand” Won’t Reduce Americans’ Suffering - Ways and Means

In its latest attempt to deny the cruel economy they’ve created, the Biden Administration is now redefining recession and downplaying...

waysandmeans.house.gov

You citing a Republican talking point doesn’t change how recessions are defined in America. You have been provided the truth. Godspeed.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

Is he the first president to charge for a meeting with him?

While in office? In my memory..in modern history....I'm not recalling it happening.

After they are out of office, very common.

I don't recall it occurring while the president was sitting though. Most of anything I can find via a quick Google references engagements after they are out of office.

People Are Paying Millions to Dine With Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago

Business leaders are paying as much as $5 million to meet one-on-one with the president at his Florida compound, sources tell WIRED, while others are paying $1 million apiece to dine with him in a group setting.

www.wired.com

Good very quick overview....at best..since no one can say where the money is going for sure..this seems..not a great deal.

If it's a party fundraiser, it would have SOME standing with precedent.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

 

[BuaConstrictor]

 

[BuaConstrictor]

 

[BuaConstrictor]

I love how Trump voters are so fucking stupid that Fox News has to use a slide deck that looks like a presentation we would have had in junior high on "HOW TARIFFS WORK" to explain to their slack jawwed audience...how this stuff works.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

 

[BuaConstrictor]

 

[GATTACA!]

I love how Trump voters are so fucking stupid that Fox News has to use a slide deck that looks like a presentation we would have had in junior high on "HOW TARIFFS WORK" to explain to their slack jawwed audience...how this stuff works.

I like Brett saying that’s not exactly how tariffs work.

IE not at fucking all lmao.

 

[ulukinatme]

No, the White House didn’t change definition of “recession"

Ahead of a key economic data announcement on July 28, critics of President Joe Biden have taken to social media to lay t

www.politifact.com

They cite an interview with economists as their basis, including Janet Yellen, to refute the two quarters rule. They also say that it's measured against other factors besides GDP such as unemployment and wage growth against inflation, which we now know were cooked at the time by the Biden administration.

From that Politifact interview "There has never been an occasion in which GDP contracted for two consecutive quarters and a recession was not eventually declared," said Sean Snaith, director of the University of Central Florida’s Institute for Economic Forecasting.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

that not exactly how tariffs work.

It's like talking to seven-year-olds.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

"There has never been an occasion in which GDP contracted for two consecutive quarters and a recession was not eventually declared,"

If true, he provides no evidence of it, it doesn't mean the Biden team changed the definition of a recession..because the White House doesn't control the parameters...or the definition..and two straight Q's of decline isn't the official definition.

You're upset one wasn't declared?

I'm not sure you even understand what you're talking about.

In your most good faith angle on this issue, you could say that the NBER not declaring a recession due to other market factors outside of the GDP is something you disagree with because you disagree with the read on economic factors X, Y, and Z.

You can't claim that Biden changed the definition because it was never his to change.

The former of these is a good-faith economic-based argument. The latter is conspiratorial BS.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

 

[RDU Irish]

To ab2c: It might come as a surprise to you that everyone isn't the same. I'm 85. Resources are severely FIXED. I have years of retirement economic information on which to predict my future available money. I'm currently sort of healthy, so I might live well into my 90s ON THIS FIXED SUM. If 5+% of that base just vanishes, maybe even you can imagine how that could be really hard on those latter years. AND, I have morons advocating no social security raises, or even cuts. Apparently people like yourself might feel that the most viable solution for YOUR economics is for us to just droop off into lower class living and die earlier. I've calculated my "trends" over and over to try to plan for rising rent, greater health treatment needs, and left field surprises that people like yourself, wanting "to be fair" about my irrational concerns, just believe to be no-sweat for someone like me. Well, it IS an @#$#ing problem for someone like me. Gawd, I can't/won't say what I'd really like to say to people who, ignorantly seem to just not give a damm. ..... whew .... take a breath and ignore this damm site for a while. People seem to think, well, you should have just made more money. Hell, why were you a lifetime teacher. (My average salary was about $40,000 a year over my thirty years.)

I appreciate you OMM and I pray for your continued health. You bring great insights to this board. But you are being hypocritical especially when you cheer on the most vitriolic poster I have seen on here in some time. He gets cover slinking around the political threads b/c such lack of decorum is tolerated here while he spams the crap out of threads derailing any potential of a real conversation.

I have worked with piles of clients making very hard decisions due to inflation biting into their limited resources. When cost of living explodes and you are unable to work anymore - it is terrible. There are a number of people I have recently advised to pursue food stamps or move in with their kids - inflation is devastating to the poor and middle classes and I see it first hand. 25 years ago, a $40k average salary was a decent living - similar to $80k to $100k in today's dollars. Your pension and social security have not come anywhere close to keeping up with the increased cost of living over the last two decades. Necessities got a lot more expensive but we pretended inflation did not exist because our Iphone could do more and cars were bigger and safer to justify higher costs not really counting as inflation.

At the same time - half of your retirement was a 0% interest rate environment with the stock market going bananas. Your story does not add up if you claim to be losing in the market right now but not admit you wildly benefited from the S&P nearly doubling over the last five years. Maybe you overspent thinking 15% annual returns are normal. I have seen plenty of people that spend every high water mark and lament falling markets. You are effectively dollar cost averaging in reverse - it is just as terrible in reverse as it is amazing going forward.

Your generation was told 10% withdrawals are sustainable - the last twenty years of data backs 4% as the annual withdrawal needed to provide inflation increases and reliably not outlive your money. 10% could work in 1984 when the 10 year Treasury was yielding 14%. Reinvesting it 10 years later would provide half as much return (under 7% in 1994). Then again in 2004 you would reinvest around 4%. 2014 down around 2.5%. BRUTALLY crushing income of savers who refuse risk and pushing so many in to risk assets. 90% income reduction while the cost of everything increases hundreds of percent.

Don't play the emotional poor old teacher sympathy card - you are a man of science who should be above emotional debate every time people challenge your liberal view. You are awesome and appreciated.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

But you are being hypocritical especially when you cheer on the most vitriolic poster

I don't think Mike cheers on drayer or bishop

 

[BuaConstrictor]

I have worked with piles of clients making very hard decisions due to inflation biting into their limited resources. When cost of living explodes and you are unable to work anymore - it is terrible. There are a number of people I have recently advised to pursue food stamps or move in with their kids - inflation is devastating to the poor and middle classes and I see it first hand.

Sounds like you're a terrible advisor.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

 

[BuaConstrictor]

 

[BuaConstrictor]

 

[BuaConstrictor]