Gubernatorial Race 2018 (Atlanta, Clayton: estate, liability, compared)

[DreamerD]

Originally Posted by atltechdude

For a lot of these people anything outside the echo chamber is far left to them.

I know that this is random but we learned about that in Computer Information System class. It's really a shame how we live in a world where so much information (of course not all info. is credible) can be accessed with the click of a button but people choose not to educate themselves/expand beyond their horizons.

[DreamerD]

Originally Posted by atltechdude

The president has very little to do with GDP and the typical business cycle either.

Obama came into office with an economy on the downswing. Trump came in with it on the upswing. It's simple logic that Trump would likely get a better overall outcome, assuming he does nothing major to **** it up.

This is taught in Economics. It has truth to it but I do believe in times of economic crises, depending on how big an action is that a president takes, it may have an effect on things such as consumer spending for example. Anyway, let me not get too deep into this.

[DreamerD]

Originally Posted by ronricks

We were told the economy and the Dow were going to crash and plunge the day after Trump was elected. Didn’t happen. Keep hearing about him ******* things up. Hasn’t happened. He got rid of senseless regulation got rid of red tape that was bad for business and the American economy and cut both income and corporate taxes. Obama could have done any of these things but didn’t. He instead chose a different path of pointless ‘stimulus’ the fed printing more money and pointless bailouts that only benefited the wealthy elite because he didn’t understand how to stimulate the economy without government spending. Not sure what is left to discuss really.

Mr. Obama and the federal reserve printing money? The two are unrelated. The federal reserve isn't part of the government...it's a separate entity.



The stimulus Mr. Obama and Congress passed would have been far more effective had it not been watered down. Research does show that it can stimulate an economy. To be honest, I would have liked to have seen more money go into the stimulus and there be more infrastructure projects. Infrastructure really shouldn't be politics but it's made into politics. It would have provided jobs (yes, not permanent but better to have a job than no job) AND helped many states do what they should have done how many years ago.



As for ordinary business cycles and GDP growth, I can't say that presidents have much effect on these...


The biggest bailout was actually signed by former president bush but I see you failed to mention that and instead put all the blame on Mr. Obama.



I do agree that the bailouts benefited the wealthy elite and would dare to say that the people should have been bailed out before the banks, insurance, etc. Our government should be working for the masses and not just a handful of people. See Iceland. I know Iceland has a much smaller economy and the economies are totally different but I find it very interesting how Iceland dealt with their recession and what happened after.

[DreamerD]

Originally Posted by ronricks

We were told the economy and the Dow were going to crash and plunge the day after Trump was elected. Didn’t happen. Keep hearing about him ******* things up. Hasn’t happened. He got rid of senseless regulation got rid of red tape that was bad for business and the American economy and cut both income and corporate taxes. Obama could have done any of these things but didn’t. He instead chose a different path of pointless ‘stimulus’ the fed printing more money and pointless bailouts that only benefited the wealthy elite because he didn’t understand how to stimulate the economy without government spending. Not sure what is left to discuss really.

And we should be careful when discussing regulation because the recession occurred due to a huge lack of regulation.

[ltaag]

voted today. Lots of people in line. Make sure you vote yes for the 11am alcohol sales

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by ronricks

Do you want to try and pick another meme? Obama never had 3.5 annual GDP. Your meme is worthless based on that alone that they must have cherrypicked some random quarter in his tenure to try and make it look good.

Well, this is where you are wrong (again). Remember, the graphic would have used numbers at the time. I can pick any of several random years....

GDP at end of 2012q4 was 16.297 trillion. GDP at end of 2013q4 was 16.999 trillion. That is a difference of $702 billion. $702 billion from $16.297 trillion is a 4.3% increase.

Let's look at inflation-adjusted numbers, since they are smaller. End of 2014q1, GDP was $15.758 trillion. End of 2015q1, GDP was $16.350 trillion. That's a difference of $592 billion. $592 billion from $15.758 trillion is a 3.8% increase.

Obama had some 12-month periods that saw increases near or higher than 5% using at the time numbers, or 3.5% using inflation-adjusted numbers. It just so happens that his end of the year marks each time were just lower when using inflation-adjusted numbers. And if you look at inflation-adjusted number and average each president's entire tenure, George Bush saw an overall increase of 13.7%, while Obama saw an overall increase of 15.74%. Those recessions will do nasty things!

I can keep doing that with several other examples, or even make a chart, but you'll come up with another excuse as to why it doesn't matter.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by DreamerD

This is taught in Economics. It has truth to it but I do believe in times of economic crises, depending on how big an action is that a president takes, it may have an effect on things such as consumer spending for example. Anyway, let me not get too deep into this.

And President Obama severely depressed consumer spending, making the recession even worse than it would have been. President Clinton had to tell him to quit belly-aching all the time. Obama, every day, was whining about how bad it was and how much worse it would get. Finally, after Clinton chastised him around late February, he learned to bite his tongue. I'd given him the same advice back in November in a letter, not that I expected anyone to do anything with the advice.

It was not any coincidence that the big crash in the market and employment didn't happen until after President Bush gave his speech talking about supporting the banking system because of how bad the housing crisis was.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by DreamerD

And we should be careful when discussing regulation because the recession occurred due to a huge lack of regulation.

Combined with over-regulation. The Democrats in 1998 in the Community Reinvestment Act basically told banks they had to make bad loans if they wanted to keep their franchise. So they figured out ways to do it and re-sell the mortgages. And that was coupled with W.'s laissez-faire approach for a perfect storm.

John McCain and 14 Republican Senators went to President Bush 2 years before the crash and asked him to rein things in. But 35 or so other Republican Senators and 50 or so Democrats were opposed to stopping the gravy train that everyone was making money in (for the moment).

[budgetwise5]

The Federal deficit rose again in the last fiscal year and is projected to continue to expand, exceeding $1 trillion, in fiscal 2019 and 2020.

Furthermore, the economy is in its tenth year of expansion and this rising deficit not only creates disequilibrium conditions in the present environment but limits what might be done beyond.

The undisciplined use of debt never ends well for the debtor and the current situation with respect to the federal government's budget only adds to the uncertainty in the world.

https://m.investing.com/news/economi...4777?ampMode=1

We are sitting on a massive bubble of debt; the national deficit and national debt, student loan debt, state pension plans and consumer debt, all fueled by the growing income inequality.

Just because a candidate is republican, or democrat, for that matter, doesn’t mean that they will do anything other than the typical appeal to emotions/stirring the pot, break campaign promises and drive the stake deeper along the platform lines, trying to distract us from the fact that the parties are not that all different, and both sold out to corporations decades ago.


Divided we fall.

[cparker73]

Originally Posted by ronricks

Abrams' massive debt is a proven fact. Kemp's lawsuit hasn't progressed, and nothing has been proven. So we don't know if he is actually liable. That is one concern.


So there are two major difference worth covering on Kemp’s debt vs. Abrams’ debt.

The first is that Abrams’ debt is realized. She personally owes $227,000 and has a negative personal net worth. Kemp’s is not realized, and he still has a $3m personal net worth.

The second is the nature of the debt. Abrams’ is her personal debt. She took out a line of credit for school, failed to pay taxes, and has 9 forms of revolving credit. Kemp’s may or may not be personal. That is up to the court to decide. Since his debt is through an LLC that he is not personally operating, he may be protected as he hasn’t been in direct management of the company. I don’t know the exact specifics of the contract, but if everything is adequately insured through the company then the company’s assets and insurance pays the debt. He still may wind up paying the debt in the long-term, but even paying this debt will keep him in a personal positive net worth. Very big difference than the scenario Abrams is in.


Then we have to look at Abrams and her multiple non profits that she is ironically profiting greatly from and funneling money to herself so she can avoid even more tax debt. Clearly, she has the money to pay off the measly 50k. Why not just set a good example as an elected official and do it? Do you know the clouds that would take off her if she were to simply do that one thing? But she isn't because becoming Governor would allow her to personally enrich herself even more with more money that she will funnel and hide. If she is doing it already she will continue to do it when elected just on a higher scale because she will have access to even more money and contacts.



Don’t forget the 70k in high interest revolving credit. Who on earth keeps 70k in revolving credit? That’s 5x the national average.

The 100k I can understand if you go to grad school these days... but she accrued this student loan debt 20 years ago! How do you still owe 100k 20 years later? She isn’t even in the millennial generation that is paying out the nose for school.

And she says she is on a payment plan with the IRS but she makes bank between her nonprofit work and her writing.

This person can’t be trusted to manage her own finances... she is a statistical outlier of high debt... but we are supposed to trust her managing the state’s complicated financial situation?

I hope you apply the same amount of rigorous scrutiny to Trump's personal and business financial situation that you're giving Abrams for the type of debt that most people can understand. The New York Times look at Trump's father's tax avoidance schemes and fraud certainly exposes how Trump owes most of his wealth to the sale of his father's empire and nothing he built on his own. I'm sure his kids are regretting his run for office because there won't be anything left of the real estate empire and the "Trump" brand that they were living off of.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...red-trump.html