Why we love Trump....

[Boss]

I'm not quite as good as your pal

1-Year Change
+$1,763,243.02

Well there you go... was "the system" holding you down, keeping you enslaved to low income?

 

[eddiew37]

Can you at least say Trump had a greater start in life that most people don't have?

He did, but you have to also remember he lost everything he had and rebuilt his fortune.

Look... I happen to know some very wealthy people. One of my best lifelong friends who I went to high school with, was recently listed in the Forbes 500. He is one of the richest people in America and he came from the same middle class background as I did. I know from growing up with him, there is something inherently different in the way their minds work. I experienced this first hand. Even back when he was in high school, he was constantly thinking of ways to generate wealth. He was a major tight wad... pinch a penny 'til it squealed. He never had a car that ran, always drove some piece of shit that would break down and leave us stranded. He STILL hates to spend money. But he can make money out of virtually NOTHING... I've seen him in action! Last year, he turned a property valued at $20k (he had nothing invested in it) into $25 million. It required some hustle on his part and he had some connections, but that was pretty fucking impressive.

People like him just have something different between their ears. He didn't screw anyone or cheat anyone, it was all legal and legitimate... he just knew how to do it. He says 90% of it is believing you CAN do it.

He didn't screw anyone or cheat anyone ?? He could NEVER have beaten trump for the presidency

 

[bendog]

You crack me up ""they know how to do it better"" Need to give that some time to sink in So these folks getting wealthier have no need of tax cuts or loopholes? Meanwhile OT You're a pretty smart guy

Again, wealth has nothing to do with income taxation. We don't tax wealth. We tax income. And yes... generally speaking, wealthier people know better how to create wealth than the average person.... that's how they became wealthy.

Can you at least say Trump had a greater start in life that most people don't have?

But it's not really the issue. I think the overall picture is that second, and really more so, third generations are not too shrewd, unless their sources of wealth are managed by stockholders (Ford, Walmart, JPMorgan (who inherited his start)). Trump, the financial genius, is a self invented myth.

It's undeniably true that some people have an ability, or even a desire, to make a lot of money. In my limited experience they're more motivated by wanting to create something ... jobs, a product, or just make a mark. Some people manage family money. Trump probably would be better off if he'd have concentrated on that.

The only thing really of importance to any economy is that it's bad for an economy when a small class owns most of the wealth and that class is more motivated by conserving their wealth than by looking at risk as a means to make large profits.

 

[rightwinger]

In a capitalistic economy there are always workers with the fewest skills, and there are jobs that require few skills. And there is no way one can define "good" choices without there also being "bad" choices. But if people are willing to work and try to support their families, America has stood for making sure jobs pay enough for families to believe children can have better lives.

it seems to me the question is whether Trump represents something new in terms of "expectations."

No. America has always stood for 'opportunity' - that is not the same as just handing people a "good life."

Look, I agree to a point; I didn't want "better" for my kids, but I wanted them to have a "good life" - so I taught them to stay in school, to wait to have children, to pursue "wealth" not specifically "money" itself but a "comfortable" financial standing [stuff like budgeting, when to buy a house or car, investing, financial independence, retirement, etc.] I instilled within them a "drive" for "betterment" in their finances/their 'status' (apartment to house, being able to get cars, snow machines, boats, saving for their kids expenses and college, etc.)

I also told them about reality; that /they/ were responsible for achieving /all/ of that stuff for themselves and their wives and kids because it wasn't anyone else's responsibility. And the second part of that "reality" is that if you /do/ let (or expect) others to 'provide' for you, then you'll /never/ achieve shit; you'll have the bare minimum for survival (if you're lucky) because there are more hands looking for freebies then there will ever be money given out - hard facts of life. My kids, unlike the recent socialist crops out there, know damn well that if they want a "good life" they have to work for it, they know it's not going to just land in their lap, they know it's probably going to take some time and effort, they understand /patience/ - turtle and the hare kind of shit. My eldest sons, in their early 20s, are all well on their way to being wealthy, or at a minimum very comfortably happy, already. Not one of them has kids, not even the 30 year old daughter, they're /all/ waiting until they've got their own shit straight before they drag kids into it.

It has /nothing/ to do with how much /I/ (the wealthy) make, it has to do with the individual's drive to succeed, where they are putting their efforts - if you're more concerned about social media/partying/showing up your friends (new car, phone, whatever)/or even playing at political activism, than you are about advancing your own life (through your career and financial status) then your priorities are not going to give you a "good life" - they'll give you the bare minimum (if you're lucky) - because that's what level of /effort/ you're putting into your financial standing and your own future. Again, wise decisions vs stupid decisions.

That's the rub you bleeding heart SJW's need to understand; you cannot /make/ someone put in effort to better their own lives, only they can do that. It doesn't matter how much money you throw at a "user" they are not going to magically turn into an "achiever" until /they/ decide to. All you do by handing out "free" money (welfare) is prolong the time these types can "use" instead of "achieving" for themselves.

When you raise the min wage, businesses will /not/ eat the cost, never will, they pass those costs onto consumers period. Businesses have "rules" too, like not living pay check to pay check - they cannot ever do that, ever - which is why they have built in "profit margins" that they will /always/ meet, because not doing so means they go bankrupt - seriously. So, if you raise the minimum wage, so the cost of their employees goes up, they have exactly two choices. 1) they lay employees off, stop hiring, etc. or 2) they increase prices to cover that cost. Typically you'll see 2, and especially at the end of a recession like we've been in, because businesses have already streamlined their employee numbers as much as they can. So they raise the prices, which means, the cost of living goes up and wipes out the min wage increase. It's a cycle and there is /nothing/ you can do about it. Whining about being "fair" isn't going to change the hard reality that businesses MUST have a certain profit margin or they go under, it is not going to change the fact that businesses are going to "reallocate" the new "expenses" of employee wage increases.

No matter how much sympathy you want to have for "poor folk" who "need help" a business is /not/ there to help, they are there to make money, period. You cannot change that, the best you can do is harness that known reality - unleash the dogs and let them grow so they hire more people; more jobs, more upward mobility for the employees, the more upward mobility for the employees there is, the more folks are getting financially "comfortable" That is the best you can hope for from businesses when it comes down to it.

I'm no more a SJW than you are a loser. But historically speaking, you're simply wrong. Jefferson and Jackson were both at heart about forcing the rich to give lesser earners a better shot at making more. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as well. The New Deal dominated our policies from 32-80. And Reagan was all about a reinvigorated capitalism that had stagnated into not rewarding effort.

Nothing I posted could be perceived as advocating for handouts. Liveable wages are not handouts. Perhaps you have a specific gripe about min wages. I didn't bring it up. Min wages may require franchises like McDonalds to raise wages. I don't know, and frankly don't much care. But it's simply not a matter of dispute that corp profits are at a all time high, and out tax policy is about to put debt on workers so profits can be higher, and at that the same time repeal govt support for workers healthcare with "no a fcking thing." And simultaneously reducing federal support for higher education.

So while Trump ran on improving how society rewards effort, he's governing in a manner exactly the opposite. (which doesn't make Hillary more likeable, btw)

To me, the bleating about the minimum wage = income inequality aka "the rich have more than me" is an SJW cause. Somewhat irrelevant.

Ugh saying "living wage" is even worse than bleating about minimum wage... "Livable" wages are a pipe dream, that's kind of what I said without using the term, like the more you force businesses to pay for employees, the more they charge customers (aka their employees) for the products they need to "live." And not to mention living wages where? In China vs America? Hell, even Anchorage Alaska vs San Francisco California? For a single teen living with mom and dad vs an single mom with four kids? ALL of them have different "living" wages, so the idea that you can put a "wage" out there as "livable" is just bologna, ya know? It's like my husband, son, and I live /very/ comfortably on... $36-40k ish that's like $20/h in total which is only a little higher than the 2016 fed min wage ($8.5/h x2 adults $35k) and on par with the 2017 min wage ($9.25/h x 2 adults $38k) - The single mother of two who's getting no child support from dead beat dad can't live in San Francisco on min wage $9.25/h (and again that's /wise/ decisions vs /stupid/ decisions stuff) but probably could in say Fargo, North Dakota, or maybe they could if they had parents who could help out and watch the kids so they didn't have to pay for daycare, or maybe dad does pay child support so she could make it work, or maybe she does or doesn't have a car payment, on and on and on with different scenarios of can or cannot live off fed minimum wage - it just shows that there is no such thing as a "livable" wage; it's a made up term with zero meaning.


Corp profits are at an all time high because they have access to the entire planet now vs from the 1930s to the 80s/90s. This is not rocket science dear, when you go from say 200-300M customers to 6B customers, no shit you make more money... When you go from a pool of 200-300M potential employees to a pool of 6B potential employees, no shit the cost of labor goes down. [Yes I know not all 200-300M in the country, nor 6B on the planet are capable working adults; the idea stands however.) You just gotta look at the /entire/ puzzle, instead of individual select pieces, ya know? Either way though, the profits of businesses isn't really tied to labor costs, I mean they sell the product for as much as they can and they pay the labor costs they have to pay based on the cost of labor... More on this a bit later though.

I mean uf dah, the new deal... you're trying to boil down global economic changes over a period of like 87 years into single American policy... it just doesn't work that way. Yes, after WWII we were a power house - we were the only nation not bombed into oblivion, of course, we shit gold and other nations had no choice but to buy it. Other nations (Europe mostly) caught up to us and started to shit their own gold, aka America had a slowing economy. Another point that effects the price of labor (aka employee wages) in the 70s we doubled the American work force (ah hell we practically doubled the global workforce because everyone wanted to be Americanized back then.) Women went to work. When you flood the market with employees the cost of labor goes down; supply and demand. Then the 80s and 90s hit, that's when communication between nations became the "norm," so damn easy, and the /true/ (or perhaps I should say "pure") globalization of businesses happened - that's when "American economy" became just a footnote in the full economic picture - where it all became an entangled rats nest. In the 80s-90s Asia started to catch up to us and Europe, massively changing the scope of the global economy and driving wages and income "inequality" by a sudden massive influx of workers (penny workers at that.) You cannot take out just "America's economy" from the global economy and try to talk about it like it's an "independent" thing ya know what I'm saying?

Nor can we /force/ companies to abide by American social [economic] wishes [aka income inequality "adjustments".] Multinational businesses, which is most of them these days (especially the min wage paying ones, box stores and shit) will pay the cost of labor - regardless of if they're in America proper or elsewhere in the world, they're going to find the most "economic" labor force. If they're making computers and labor in China's cheaper they'll go there and import to American's, etc. You know the story, or can figure it out, I'm sure. AND people, American's will buy the cheap shit - that drives lower wages too so there it is. It's a circle, it's all tied together.

When you talk about "income inequality" and shit you're looking at the polar extremes - poor people in America vs global companies entire profit off the planet. Like oil companies who have a product that /everyone/ wants. They are making money off sales across entire planet so of course they're going to have more "equity" than a minimum wage worker who only works (aka sells) their own labor for themselves. No kidding a company that can sell to 6M can make more than an individual who is say a server at a restaurant that serves maybe 300 people a day (that's 150k a year customers) - percentage wise, right, I mean the individual min wage worker has 0.000025% of the customer base to make profit off of - (ya follow?) One has to understand that multinational corps are like... octopuses, each arm has its own brain (seriously.) Take K-mart right, each individual store has to be financially solvent. The parent company will suck up individual stores losses for a little bit, but at some point they cut that "arm" lose and close the store (they did that up here in Alaska, our K-marts were some of the first to go under - labor up here is expensive and they couldn't remain solvent financially.) Each store has to maintain a profit margin in order to be "solvent" or they're a risk of bankruptcy, which effects the entire corp (stock values and shit) Lets say a store has a profit margin of say 3%/y; that means they are /spending/ 97%/y of their profits just to operate [many businesses have /monthly/ profit margins but you get the point.] That means if there's a down turn in profits they go in the hole, they can't even maintain the store for a month. So I mean to say okay fed min wage needs to be $25/h across the nation is seriously shitty because the Home Depot in bumfuck Texas population 200k isn't making enough to cover that labor cost increase.

... I could go on and on about hows and whys, but I'll stop cause peoples eyes tend to glaze over.

We used to have living wages

Low skilled workers could earn enough to support themselves and their families. Todays low skilled worker needs government help to get by. A tax subsidy for their employers to make a profit

With increasing technology, there may not be jobs. The rich may have to pay us to buy their shit. LOL

Most do not actually produce anything

 

[eddiew37]

I'm not quite as good as your pal

1-Year Change
+$1,763,243.02

Well there you go... was "the system" holding you down, keeping you enslaved to low income?

No but I got lucky Not too many can buy a building for 275k and many years later turn down 8.5 million Never cheated anyone never screwed anyone Give breaks to my renters and give plenty to families in need come Xmas

 

[Deno]

I snatched this from my home forum from DFB...

It's so good..........

It's about Trumps lack of decorum, dignity and statesmanship.


My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”

Here’s my answer:

We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.

We tried statesmanship. Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as Ronald Reagan?

We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?

And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.


XXXX - Mod Edit -- Shortened for "fair use" .. Read the USMB Posting Guidelines Deno

It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive. Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s church.

Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.

So, to my friends on the Left — and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”? Of course I do. These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years.

So, say anything you want about this president - I get it - he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care.

Mod Edit to include the proper link to source. (pretty sure this is it).. Don't post potentially copyrighted material without a link to the primary source site.

Evan Sayet - He Fights

There you have it. For the Trumpbots, Reagan was a failure. It's honest. They're stupid. Well played. LOL

Talk about stupid, you own it...