Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6818

  • DRW50

    5992

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3465

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

Of course, the big dummy would be ignorant as to whether a weak dollar or a strong one benefits the U.S. economy- that has a lot to do with trade, something for which he seems to have a very unrealistic notion of how it operates. I wonder how much his father "contributed" to the Wharton School of Business in order to take him. 

 

So ironic that Trump was always trying to diminish President Obama's credentials when Trump himself is as ignorant as the day is long!

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/02/elizabeth-warren-coretta-scott-king-jeff-sessions

If Democrats have anything to be thankful for it's that Republicans keep screwing up like this.  Silencing Elizabeth Warren makes them looks so weak and pathetic. Plus it shows that they are afraid of the simple truth about some of their nominees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Besides having someone in the WH who is utterly ignorant on what having a weak dollar vs. a strong one means for the general economy, here's more disturbing news for anyone who still thinks the Orange Menace will be a boon to the U.S. economy.

Of course, in the scheme of things a booming stock market can often mean very little for everyday Americans but having a failing one definitely portends worse financial times for everybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The bottom line is financial markets don't like instability. The stock market jumped now because everyone is thrilled at the idea of the upcoming cash grab but it's pretty inevitable that the bottom will fall out because - say it with me - Republicans always screw up the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

For all the talk about Dem messaging, I feel like this is one that we keep missing and we need to keep it simple. Republicans. Always. Screw Up. The Economy. Always. The last time Repubs had the White House and Congress we got the Great Depression. Reagan gave us Black Monday in 1987. W gave us the crash of 2007. Red states all over the country are disasters: Brownback's Kansas "experiment" is an unmitigated failure, Walker helped drive Wisconsin to the bottom of job creation, Ohio's well on its way to a recession thanks to Kasich.

 

Republicans always screw up the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Why is that?  Does it have to do with trickle-down economics?  Because, it seems to me that cutting taxes for the wealthy doesn't guarantee that the wealthy will spend more in order to boost the economy overall.  If anything, I think the wealthy stay wealthy (or become even wealthier) because they don't spend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Trickle down doesn't work. Never has been proven to. In 2010 and 2011 when the economy was still slowly recovering, Corporations and the Wealthiest 1% were shown to have more cash in the bank than ever and not spending it. Corporations were not investing and creating jobs nor were the wealthiest 1%. It sounds great in theory but has never been proven.  We live in a consumer driven economy. One thing my brother and I disagreed on were the George W Bush taxcuts where there was a rebate provided to individual tax payers. Was it a good idea? Maybe not because it generated a false boom and sense of security that didn't really exist. But there is also no proof that giving corporations the rebate versus consumers would have magically created jobs as my brother claimed.

 

The stock market is booming now because of all the deregulation happening or that is going to happen. But as @Marceline said what the stock market likes most is stability and steady growth. Harding and Hoover led to the depression, Reagan led to the Savings and Loan debacle and the crash of 1987, George W Bush led to bailouts needed for Wall Street to keep us from sinking into a depression. Next time it happens I doubt there will be any bailout and like 1929 even the rich bankers will go broke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Recent Posts

    • I had forgotten that several Days stars came out strong against Melissa. Good for them!
    • That would have made sense. Did all these characters get dropped when DePriest left or had they already been dropped?
    • The other issue with Missy: in June 2020, she "liked" some social media posts by Candace Owens -- things Candace said that were against Black Lives Matter.  That is described here https://tvline.com/news/melissa-reeves-racism-days-of-our-lives-instagram-controversy-2894568/ I don't know if that was ever resolved.
    • She appeared onscreen not long after Rose Livingston and Sara Montaigne, and we found out that Sara was Rose's estranged daughter. I wonder whether Peggy might have been part of that family group -- or else they were just juggling a few different potential mysteries so that they could develop whatever seemed to be getting the best response from the audience. They didn't do anything much with Rose and Sara really either. Maybe Rose would have become more prominent if Rachel and Mac had split up over Mitch, or if Sara had really flourished. In some ways I can picture Cheryl being affected by MJ's prostitution similarly to how Josie was distressed by finding out about Sharlene. But I can also see that Josie as a Frame being involved with Matthew would have different stakes for Rachel and Sharlene than Cheryl being involved with Scott. I do think the solution for Cheryl would have had to be a badder boy than Scott -- either a real bad boy who would do her wrong, or the kind of bad boy (not Chad!!!) who is essentially misunderstood and other people just don't understand. Cheryl would also have been better off with some friends her own age. Matthew and Josie benefited a bit from having other teenagers to interact with.
    • Sally Spencer was a decent actress, but the writing destroyed the "M.J." that Kathleen Layman had built. Layman had a quiet strength about her, and she and Osburn really felt like sisters. Spencer's character should have been either an unmentioned sister, or maybe Jake's that grew up close to Kathleen, M.J. and the rest, but was away for a few years before joining the force. Kristen Marie was o.k., but I always got a mousier vibe from her. Being pigeon-holed with Scott for most of the run hurt things for her, as well.  The Loves were also underserved between Rhonda Lewin and Philece Sampler. Philece would have been better as Nicole. Thank goodness Anne Heche  showed up for the next round of auditions. Christopher Holder was mediocre as Peter, but given a shot, I think Marcus Smythe could have stuck around for a while.  I would have had Peggy Lazarus be a Frame -- possibly an ex-wife for Vince with an agenda. Smythe and Hollen had  a fun chemistry that could have kept the two around.. Bringing recasts for  Cheryl and Ben back mixing it up with other Frames. Corys, Lawrences at the time might have kept all the families stronger. 
    • shoot...he said in that Locher room with Krista. I think he met her before that---she was doing Broadway and they had mutual friends or an agent maybe?
    • Yes. And I assume he met Mary Ellen Stuart at GL.
    • That's an odd coincidence. Yeah, Roger would turn anything he could to his advantage. At the time, he's just taking the pictures to bank leverage over Reva, Billy or the Lewises.  I'm kinda squeamish about 1986 episodes myself. I'd love to hear the original version of Ross/Vanessa/Dinah, but the Cain story is bad, and I don't want Billy and Vanessa to break up.
    • Eeek. I didn't know this either! I will say, though, even though they skimmed over a lot of Roger's past, I will give them props for not trying to turn him into a hero. Yeah, I was hoping we would get more 1986 episodes than were available on YT before, but now I'm wondering if I really want to see that. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy