Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Mick1ParticipantI think we’re not going to notice it for a long time. And then…we will suddenly notice the presence of benign overlords…
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Mick1ParticipantAgreed. Trump doesn’t do quiet or subtle, however…
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Mick1ParticipantNope, not warranted. It is obviously a clerical error, and she’s not the only U. S. citizen who received one. They need to tighten up their administrative ship.
Curious to know why she and the Boston-based immigration attorney received the same e-mail. Sabotage? Maybe. If I’m a Lefty working a low-level data steward job, I can really embarrass the administration if I add the names of citizens to a deportation database.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Mick1ParticipantMy favorite line of the day: Senator Kennedy said of AOC: “I consider her the leader of the Democratic Party. She has her opinion and I have mine. And my opinion is that she’s the reason there are instructions on shampoo bottles.”
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Mick1ParticipantAdam is a genuinely bad guy.
I think years of Democratic control has lead to overreach which has led to their current dire straits. They controlled basically the entire American government for 14 of the last 17 years. It’s biting them on the rear end.
It’s affecting Governor Loathsome. A recent Emerson poll of California voters, those who know him best, don’t want him to run for President…by a wide margin. 59% say no to a Presidential bid. 61% of Democrats say yes, but 78% of Republicans and 71% of independents say no.
His overall approval rating is 33%, overall negative is 42%.
California Voters Do Not Want Gavin Newsom To Run for President: Poll
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Mick1ParticipantOutstanding point, rog. Basically, it’s the reason I left the Republican party over 20 years ago, Bush’s refusal to address the mounting national debt. The lowest the debt has ever been, expressed as a percentage of GDP, was in 1929. Then President Hoover, reviled as the Great Depression president, actually increased the debt during his term from 16% to 17% to 22% to 34%.
That old boy was spending. FDR pushed it to a new level, jumping it to 40%, where it held steady until 1938 and 1939 when the Depression was supposedly over, but the debt jumped to 42% and then 51%, and of course WWII skyrocketed the debt.
In the wake of WWII, America’s share of global manufacturing jumped from 1/4th prewar to one half. And our debt declined from 119% of GDP in 1946 to 31% in 1974 and again in 1981, the year of the Reagan tax cut. It’s been climbing ever since. It went down in Clinton’s last two years, then inched up by 1% a year every year in Bush’s two terms.
Then Obama took over and it exploded, increasing from 68% in Bush’s last year to 82% in Obama’s first year, then 90% his second year, then 95%, then 99%, increasing to 105% in Obama’s last year. And remember, that was with the Fed’s interest rate of 0.25% for seven of Obama’s eight years in office.
Trump actually kept it the same for his first three years. Then COVID hit, and it increased from 107% to 129%. It is 122% now, far above WWII debt levels.
We have to make the hard choices. Agreed.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Mick1ParticipantBuzz is building for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes as the face of the Democratic party in the wake of her “Fighting Oligarchy” tour with Bernie Sanders.
She’s basically saying that there needs to be a generational shift in the party’s leadership…basically what she did to Joe Crowley. She’s bucked her own party and criticized its leadership on a number of fronts, including Schumer’s handling of the government funding bill.
Matt Bennett of the center-left Third Way says (in essence) she’s getting big crowds, but only those predisposed to like her anyway. She’s not attracting the Democrats who left the party to vote for Trump. He thinks she’d be better off if she stayed in the House.
Buzz builds around Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s future
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Mick1ParticipantIn a Politico/UC Berkeley poll, California influencers seem indifferent to Kamala Harris’ potential run for CA Governor. Make no mistake, California’s registered voters seem to think it’s a good idea. 33% report feeling “joyful” at the prospect.
The influencers…different story:
- 36% feel “indifferent”
- 22% feel “mostly excited”
- 20% feel “irritated”
- 4% feel “outraged”
Independent voters (like me) have a low level of enthusiasm for Ms. Harris’ bid. 21% feel “hopeless” and 26% feel “irritated.” (Throw me in the “despondent” camp).
Kamala Harris potential run for California Governor met with indifference from policy influencers
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Mick1Participant“When warranted.”
If you are in this country without documentation, you are here illegally. Therefore, you can and should be deported. I hope we can both agree on that.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Mick1ParticipantPresuming that everything you say is fully and completely accurate and that the 60 minutes investigation is fully and completely accurate, I fully denounce deportations of non-criminals to prisons, period, full-stop.
I also fully denounce countries that refuse to accept their citizens who have illegally emigrated to the United States. BYT, will you also denounce that practice?
Audaces fortuna iuvat
April 10, 2025 at 1:39 pm in reply to: Trump To Punish States For Not Ceding Election Authority #10090
Mick1ParticipantIncidentally, Harris still thinks she would have beaten Trump if she’d had more than 107 days to campaign. Hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, sister…you were losing ground.
Cooler heads are prevailing. Looks like she’s leaning to a run for California Governor in 2026. Not surprisingly, she has given no interviews and not sought the spotlight. Basically, people close to Harris think she’ll glide into the CA governor’s mansion if she runs, and two potential competitors have said they’d drop out if Harris enters the race.
Sidelined and Still Processing Her Defeat, Harris Looks for a Way Back In – DNyuz
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Mick1ParticipantIn fact, the WSJ should stick to inflation announcements, given that inflation cooled back down… Inflation Cooled to 2.4% in March, Lower Than Expected – WSJ
Consumer prices went down 0.1% last month, first dip in five years.
US consumer prices post first decline in nearly five years
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Mick1ParticipantSecond, who cares about trade deficits.
And if you ever want to know why the Left does so badly economically speaking, here’s Exhibit A. There’s only four elements to a country’s GDP: consumer spending, business investment, government spending and international trade deficit/surplus. That’s it. And ours is $1 trillion, up from $522 bils. when Senile Joe took over. And yet BYT says “who cares.”
That’s week 1, Economics 101. You have no standing to comment on Economics if you don’t understand that basic fact, that we’ve been exporting our wealth for half a century.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Mick1ParticipantIn fact, the WSJ should stick to inflation announcements, given that inflation cooled back down…
Inflation Cooled to 2.4% in March, Lower Than Expected – WSJ
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Mick1ParticipantNot mine, but pretty much sums up the problem. To be clear, paying taxes for non-infrastructure government generally does not improve the economy. There are rare exceptions (NASA innovations, the Internet, etc.) of stuff funded by public research that gains commercial acceptance, but a lot of what is publicly funded nowadays is not that kind of research. —————————— In 2010, federal spending was $3.456 trillion—14.6% of GDP. In 2023, it hit $6.134 trillion—22.8% of GDP. That’s a 78% increase in spending in just 13 years. And what do we have to show for it? Nothing.
Rogpodge, I like the way you hit numbers, they’re realistic.
Sometimes, even the Wall Street Journal misuses numbers. For example, today’s WSJ has an article on how Trump’s import/export math does not incorporate services. That’s the headline. So I was expecting an article that balances services and goods, and how we actually don’t have a trade deficit.
Buried way, way down in the article is the fact that the USA has a $1 trillion trade deficit…but the services surplus is $295 billion. And they point out that is up from $77 billion since 2000. So in other words…the services surplus doesn’t come close to solving the trade deficit and the growth has basically been limited to inflation since then.
Trump’s Trade Math Ignores a Major Export: American Services – WSJ
I understand why they did it. WSJ is essentially the journal of services and they don’t want their ox gored, especially since they’ve been feeding off of the American economy for centuries.
-
This reply was modified 10 months, 4 weeks ago by
Mick1.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
AuthorPosts