Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that not voting for Hillary was pretty smart, but voting for Trump instead of Hillary because they didn't want someone who was so deep in Wall Street and corporations?
When you go back at NAFTA for example, which is a sensitive issue in the rust belt, it's really everything the conservatives in this country want, as well as big business, wall street corporate Dems, and everything Ronald Regan would have wanted. I looked back at the agreement and looked at all the people who voted for it. It was Bipartisan, but it's a little more of a GOP idea than a democrat idea. About 75-80% of the GOP members in congress at the time supported it, and about 40-45% of Democrats. I wonder how much that has changed now.
But it's definitely something that the GOP supports, so going forward, it's interesting that Trump is anti-NAFTA, and seems to be taking a protectionist stance when his party is not....it's also interesting because he's also going to need the support of congress on both sides of the isle to get his agenda accomplished.
So Yes the people didn't want someone who was going to act in wall street, and corporate interests, but their own, because people are trying to take their country back, and people are tired of being ignored. Particularly when it comes to the rust belt states on Trade. He lost the popular vote, not to mention, there were over 7 million who voted third party, but won the electoral, and mainly because he addressed those issues in the Blue Wall Democrat states. They didn't want someone who they feel wasn't going to act in their interests and represent them. It's a little ironic that they think a billionaire businessman will, but he addressed it, and that was enough.
And meanwhile for the Democrats, they're probably not going to change and in 2020, they will run Cory Booker who says he is not running in 2020 what so ever, but I don't believe it, because they think he can be another Obama, and it will be another scenario where we will have to choose between the lesser of two evils again unless of course: Tom Hanks runs and hijacks the party lol, or if Bernie Sanders runs at 108 years old.
Last edited by mttzakr87; 01-24-2017 at 01:23 AM..
Really? You're in the wrong field then, my income went up 250% between Oct 08 and Nov 16
I agree with this. My income has also gone up substantially Never thought about it percentage-wise but just figured it out and mine went up 233% from Sept 2009 and Dec 2016. I'll probably get a raise this year too.
I hate to say it but corporate democrats like Clinton, Booker, Schumer, are the reason why people voted for Trump, you can't be for the working class if you you're party has so many deep in Wall Street and corporations.
Legit question: If you believe this, why on Earth did you vote for Trump?
Moreso because of the boomers retiring than anything. The number counts the labor force versus the entire population, including infants, the elderly, the disabled, stay at home parents, etc. I don't know of any babies looking for jobs as of now.
Quote:
Lowest homeownership rates in 50 years. This is a big deal because many Americans gain wealth through homeownership. Homeowners on average have a much higher net worth versus renters.
I don't know if that net worth relationship is causal. Those who can afford to own a home typically are worth much more at the outset than those who have to rent anyway. That being said, yes, it is tougher to build wealth when you rent-but it has been shown that a home is no longer the best investment on average compared to other options such as the stock market (I'll dig up my source in a bit).
Also, keep in mind the incoming generation looking for housing is mired in college debt. That's not helping those numbers. If I recall correctly, I believe Obama had taken measures to reduce such costs, but I can't quite remember off the top of my head, so don't consider that my rebuttal until I can back myself up. I value consistency
Quote:
32% Jump in Americans on food stamps under Obama too.
Welp, I don't have a rebuttal for this one . I don't necessarily disbelieve but can I see a source to read more on that?
Quote:
On the other hand the wealthy have done quite well under Obama.
That is true. The middle class has shrunk somewhat as well. That's largely due to forces that have been in place since Clinton, what with the advent of the Internet, automated manufacturing, union decline, rise of China/the Far East, free trade, etc etc etc. I'm not sure how much of that can be blamed on Obama versus the momentum of the market. Which in that case, I'm not quite sure how much credit he gets for a rebound either.
The majority of your points are totally valid quite honestly. The "Obama recovery" has been far from ideal. That being said, my fear is that our current POTUS will only accelerate those trends.
As for what I like about Obama, I am a huge fan of his renewed focus on cities. He had hired a lot of cabinet members from the inner city and created a lot of initiatives (like TIGER grants) that brought metro areas together in greater cooperation and really have helped cities innovate and become more dynamic economically. A lot of his initiatives were very ground-up, which is why they weren't that newsworthy and haven't made a major splash, but they will have spectacular and positive impact in the long run. That's the best way to make change in my opinion. And considering how cities and their surrounding suburbs are the heart of our nation's economy and home to the vast majority of our population, it's nice to see a president pay more than lip service to them for once.
The list is long, but the most important was that he made me very proud to have him as President. Thank you, President Obama. Love, respect and great admiration always.
My health insurance costs quadrupled over the past five years. But hey! I've got coverage in case I get pregnant! Oh, wait...I don't have a uterus anymore...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
lol, or if Bernie Sanders runs at 108 years old.
