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.
President Trump is absolutely the greatest on the economy. Dow breaks 25,000
They say it still has room to run !!!!
Go ahead 401K make my day !!!
Many of the working poor and middle class don't have 401k plans. And this new tax plan just gives more to the rich. What exactly has he done for the middle class.
The DOW breaking records means that investors are terrified, risk is at an all-time high, and the future is seen as being so unsure that the financial world feels that we may not have a future of which to speak.
No one uses the DOW as an indicator of market success. Before you speak of this in real life, just consider this a tip to avoid appearing ignorant.
Also, what goes up must come down. Soaring market prices inevitably mean only one thing: exactly ten years ago we were all very certain about one thing, and it was not unparalleled market growth.
This time around, we do not have the Obama administration. How well do you believe the Trump presidency to be capable of responding to another financial apocalypse?
Everyone should find their own risk tolerance and have their "go bag" ready and not depend on anyone else.
There will always be survivors.
Here is a link to a checklist for the neo-survivalist preparing for the apocalypse. One suggestion is note worthy. It may have some application in a financial apocalypse with some ingenuity.
In the event of apocalypse, bring condoms. Survivalists absolutely adore condoms. Featherweight, ultracompact and durable, condoms (nonlubricated, please) can be used as a makeshift canteen to store water, a fire starter or as elastic bands for an improvised slingshot to hunt small game. ( think penny stocks here )
Doesn't fit you narrative, so ad hominem fallacy. We see how it is to your argument.
The exact same people who lined up to claim the economy would crash if Trump was elected, are now loath to give him an inch of credit for it today. It speaks for itself.
Again with the "hominem fallacy?"
Not a fallacy in the first place and what argument is it you suggest I'm making?
You selectively clipped the rest of my comment that I will repeat here for anyone to read, judge and answer perhaps better than you can; "Why bother bantering about that nonsense in the first place? There were people making predictions of all sorts back before the election was over. Now too. That will never stop. Google for whatever floats your boat, but why forever waste the time on that sort of playground nana nana nana nonsense instead of focusing our attention on the REASONS Trump is deserving of whatever praise or criticism he is getting TODAY?"
You are right, however, about how that sort of nonsense does not fit my "narrative." I'm not a child anymore!
Doesn't fit you narrative, so ad hominem fallacy. We see how it is to your argument.
The exact same people who lined up to claim the economy would crash if Trump was elected, are now loath to give him an inch of credit for it today. It speaks for itself.
The hominem fallacy...
I never believed the economy would crash if Trump was elected. I have commented too many times already that the POTUS doesn't have that sort of power and our economy doesn't swing about that quickly in any case. We all know what combination of influences brought on the Great Recession, what truly was an economic crash. None of those sorts of problems were driving our economy down when Trump took office, so all those "exact same people" who claimed any such nonsense were also talking nonsense like we read here from people who don't know the first thing about economics.
THOSE are the exact same people who now insist on giving Trump credit for anything positive and "now loath" to recognize those falsehoods because they need those falsehoods to fit THEIR/YOUR narrative.
There's your "hominem fallacy" if you want to claim any kind of fallacy!
Where in Capitalism do we find the government owning shares of a supposedly private business?
I can as easily say "are not food stamps a socialist program so are we not Socialists"?
Everyone supports socialist programs when it benefits them even if they have to call it something else.
I see we've not made any progress since yesterday. Why am I not surprised...?
Have you found the definition of capitalism that suggests the government cannot intervene or participate in the private sector with business loans? Or incentives? Tax deductions, tariffs, regulations, money supply, credit easing (or tightening) and all the rest that government can and will do in symbiotic fashion with the private sector? All that government/private activity mean we don't embrace capitalist ideology in this country? Wrong.
And what makes the Food Stamp program (WIC -- nutrition assistance for Women, Infants and Children) a socialist program? Simply because a program is government sponsored does NOT make it socialist. Here too, look up the definition of socialism! Or if you don't want to bother, no point in bothering any further with this nonsense either, other than to simply point out yet again you are misusing and misunderstanding these terms!
Nah, I was just asking because the corporate tax savings hasn't been invested in the market yet. So I'm not sure what these Trump haters are talking about.
The reason some people "hate" Trump and/or people like me wish he were not our POTUS have to do with a lot more than how Trump gets credit for the rise in the stock market. You are not sure about what you don't understand, of course. Goes with the territory...
Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle when they take office. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy.
The $19 trillion dollar U.S. economy is like an oil tanker...its direction is well established before any president takes office.
But every time the economy goes up, the party with the POTUS in power always claims the results, and when it goes down the party not in power does. This is a kindergartener's understanding of economics.
Except the recovery started under Obama, so while it is not accurate to give credit to the economy to ANY president, it is factually correct to say "the stock market started doing really well again under Obama and rose to new highs."
On the other hand, it is factually INCORRECT to pretend that Trump started at a terrible low in the market - unlike Obama - and somehow drove the market to new highs. The reality is that under Obama, the market recovered from a huge crash to new highs, while Trump is just riding along on Obama's coattails.
The reality is obama nor trump is responsible for the stock market bubble unless you want to say they both backed Fed goons like Yellen with their Quantitative Easings so they get credit for that.
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.
