Economy is roaring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
My 401K is up 12% since Dec 1. Jesus H

Unglaublich

The leftists hate when "ordinary" people (meaning those who never earned six figures) save their money, invest for retirement, and see big increases under Trump. The market is almost 60% since he was elected!



So awful!!@!!!

Who's going to vote crazy Dem with a growing 401k and 529 for their kids?


It’s not sustainable you dummy


Hilarious. Looking for bad economic news so they can win elections. No wonder democrats hate capitalism. Independence, self sufficiently, and orange man bad!

It seems to me that the "great recession" of 2008 did not happen under a "socialist" (if we are saying that the president has a lot to do with the economy). People do remember that. They also remember that a more liberal president was the one who had to stabilize the situation. Was it perfect? Heck no. However, it could have been worse. If we have a war or other major spending, the same thing that happened under Bush will happen again (a pumped up economy and then a crash). Heck, even without war Trump is racking up major debt. This cannot be denied. All looks wonderful right now, but there are no crystal balls. One thing is clear . . . we need to make sure Social Security and Medicare are kept solvent as back stops. It doesn't matter how "rich" you might seem to be today . . . those are back stops for EVERYONE.

Climate change is going to be the much bigger issue affecting the economy. Even Trump can't stop that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
My 401K is up 12% since Dec 1. Jesus H

Unglaublich

The leftists hate when "ordinary" people (meaning those who never earned six figures) save their money, invest for retirement, and see big increases under Trump. The market is almost 60% since he was elected!



So awful!!@!!!

Who's going to vote crazy Dem with a growing 401k and 529 for their kids?


It’s not sustainable you dummy


Hilarious. Looking for bad economic news so they can win elections. No wonder democrats hate capitalism. Independence, self sufficiently, and orange man bad!

It seems to me that the "great recession" of 2008 did not happen under a "socialist" (if we are saying that the president has a lot to do with the economy). People do remember that. They also remember that a more liberal president was the one who had to stabilize the situation. Was it perfect? Heck no. However, it could have been worse. If we have a war or other major spending, the same thing that happened under Bush will happen again (a pumped up economy and then a crash). Heck, even without war Trump is racking up major debt. This cannot be denied. All looks wonderful right now, but there are no crystal balls. One thing is clear . . . we need to make sure Social Security and Medicare are kept solvent as back stops. It doesn't matter how "rich" you might seem to be today . . . those are back stops for EVERYONE.

Climate change is going to be the much bigger issue affecting the economy. Even Trump can't stop that.

DP. The Great Recession had as it roots the liberal dream of "equality" - and in this case, that even low-income people are entitled to own their own homes. So while there wasn't a socialist at the helm when the Great Recession took root, the ideal behind it - "everyone gets a house!" - did indeed smack of socialism. Sorry, but cocktail waitresses and retail clerks with a HS degree earning $40,000 are NOT entitled to buy a $400,000 townhouse with a "no-doc" loan.

(Reminds me of a woman I know, who barely squeaked through high school and now works in a low-level office job. She was complaining to me (yes, to me) that it "isn't fair" that I have a nice home and she can only afford to rent. My response to her was that maybe she could take some classes at the local community college and work into a higher-paying job, and she told me she was "too tired" after a day of work to go to night class.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
My 401K is up 12% since Dec 1. Jesus H

Unglaublich

The leftists hate when "ordinary" people (meaning those who never earned six figures) save their money, invest for retirement, and see big increases under Trump. The market is almost 60% since he was elected!



So awful!!@!!!

Who's going to vote crazy Dem with a growing 401k and 529 for their kids?


It’s not sustainable you dummy


Hilarious. Looking for bad economic news so they can win elections. No wonder democrats hate capitalism. Independence, self sufficiently, and orange man bad!

It seems to me that the "great recession" of 2008 did not happen under a "socialist" (if we are saying that the president has a lot to do with the economy). People do remember that. They also remember that a more liberal president was the one who had to stabilize the situation. Was it perfect? Heck no. However, it could have been worse. If we have a war or other major spending, the same thing that happened under Bush will happen again (a pumped up economy and then a crash). Heck, even without war Trump is racking up major debt. This cannot be denied. All looks wonderful right now, but there are no crystal balls. One thing is clear . . . we need to make sure Social Security and Medicare are kept solvent as back stops. It doesn't matter how "rich" you might seem to be today . . . those are back stops for EVERYONE.

Climate change is going to be the much bigger issue affecting the economy. Even Trump can't stop that.

DP. The Great Recession had as it roots the liberal dream of "equality" - and in this case, that even low-income people are entitled to own their own homes. So while there wasn't a socialist at the helm when the Great Recession took root, the ideal behind it - "everyone gets a house!" - did indeed smack of socialism. Sorry, but cocktail waitresses and retail clerks with a HS degree earning $40,000 are NOT entitled to buy a $400,000 townhouse with a "no-doc" loan.

(Reminds me of a woman I know, who barely squeaked through high school and now works in a low-level office job. She was complaining to me (yes, to me) that it "isn't fair" that I have a nice home and she can only afford to rent. My response to her was that maybe she could take some classes at the local community college and work into a higher-paying job, and she told me she was "too tired" after a day of work to go to night class.)

SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM!!!!

BOOGEY BOOGEY BOOGEY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
My 401K is up 12% since Dec 1. Jesus H

Unglaublich

The leftists hate when "ordinary" people (meaning those who never earned six figures) save their money, invest for retirement, and see big increases under Trump. The market is almost 60% since he was elected!



So awful!!@!!!

Who's going to vote crazy Dem with a growing 401k and 529 for their kids?


It’s not sustainable you dummy


Hilarious. Looking for bad economic news so they can win elections. No wonder democrats hate capitalism. Independence, self sufficiently, and orange man bad!

It seems to me that the "great recession" of 2008 did not happen under a "socialist" (if we are saying that the president has a lot to do with the economy). People do remember that. They also remember that a more liberal president was the one who had to stabilize the situation. Was it perfect? Heck no. However, it could have been worse. If we have a war or other major spending, the same thing that happened under Bush will happen again (a pumped up economy and then a crash). Heck, even without war Trump is racking up major debt. This cannot be denied. All looks wonderful right now, but there are no crystal balls. One thing is clear . . . we need to make sure Social Security and Medicare are kept solvent as back stops. It doesn't matter how "rich" you might seem to be today . . . those are back stops for EVERYONE.

Climate change is going to be the much bigger issue affecting the economy. Even Trump can't stop that.

DP. The Great Recession had as it roots the liberal dream of "equality" - and in this case, that even low-income people are entitled to own their own homes. So while there wasn't a socialist at the helm when the Great Recession took root, the ideal behind it - "everyone gets a house!" - did indeed smack of socialism. Sorry, but cocktail waitresses and retail clerks with a HS degree earning $40,000 are NOT entitled to buy a $400,000 townhouse with a "no-doc" loan.

(Reminds me of a woman I know, who barely squeaked through high school and now works in a low-level office job. She was complaining to me (yes, to me) that it "isn't fair" that I have a nice home and she can only afford to rent. My response to her was that maybe she could take some classes at the local community college and work into a higher-paying job, and she told me she was "too tired" after a day of work to go to night class.)

SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM!!!!

BOOGEY BOOGEY BOOGEY

Typical retort from an ignorant lefty who can't refute the point. My only hope is that you are young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
My 401K is up 12% since Dec 1. Jesus H

Unglaublich

The leftists hate when "ordinary" people (meaning those who never earned six figures) save their money, invest for retirement, and see big increases under Trump. The market is almost 60% since he was elected!



So awful!!@!!!

Who's going to vote crazy Dem with a growing 401k and 529 for their kids?


It’s not sustainable you dummy


Hilarious. Looking for bad economic news so they can win elections. No wonder democrats hate capitalism. Independence, self sufficiently, and orange man bad!

It seems to me that the "great recession" of 2008 did not happen under a "socialist" (if we are saying that the president has a lot to do with the economy). People do remember that. They also remember that a more liberal president was the one who had to stabilize the situation. Was it perfect? Heck no. However, it could have been worse. If we have a war or other major spending, the same thing that happened under Bush will happen again (a pumped up economy and then a crash). Heck, even without war Trump is racking up major debt. This cannot be denied. All looks wonderful right now, but there are no crystal balls. One thing is clear . . . we need to make sure Social Security and Medicare are kept solvent as back stops. It doesn't matter how "rich" you might seem to be today . . . those are back stops for EVERYONE.

Climate change is going to be the much bigger issue affecting the economy. Even Trump can't stop that.

DP. The Great Recession had as it roots the liberal dream of "equality" - and in this case, that even low-income people are entitled to own their own homes. So while there wasn't a socialist at the helm when the Great Recession took root, the ideal behind it - "everyone gets a house!" - did indeed smack of socialism. Sorry, but cocktail waitresses and retail clerks with a HS degree earning $40,000 are NOT entitled to buy a $400,000 townhouse with a "no-doc" loan.

(Reminds me of a woman I know, who barely squeaked through high school and now works in a low-level office job. She was complaining to me (yes, to me) that it "isn't fair" that I have a nice home and she can only afford to rent. My response to her was that maybe she could take some classes at the local community college and work into a higher-paying job, and she told me she was "too tired" after a day of work to go to night class.)

SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM!!!!

BOOGEY BOOGEY BOOGEY

Typical retort from an ignorant lefty who can't refute the point. My only hope is that you are young.

Oh honey. I'm old enough to see the "socialism" accusation for the empty denunciation it is.

Can you even define socialism? Can you point out the specific socialist policies implemented under supposedly socialist politicians in the US? And describe how they actualize real socialist agendas in accordance with socialist principles written by real socialists?

You sound naive about political theories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
My 401K is up 12% since Dec 1. Jesus H

Unglaublich

The leftists hate when "ordinary" people (meaning those who never earned six figures) save their money, invest for retirement, and see big increases under Trump. The market is almost 60% since he was elected!



So awful!!@!!!

Who's going to vote crazy Dem with a growing 401k and 529 for their kids?


It’s not sustainable you dummy


Hilarious. Looking for bad economic news so they can win elections. No wonder democrats hate capitalism. Independence, self sufficiently, and orange man bad!

It seems to me that the "great recession" of 2008 did not happen under a "socialist" (if we are saying that the president has a lot to do with the economy). People do remember that. They also remember that a more liberal president was the one who had to stabilize the situation. Was it perfect? Heck no. However, it could have been worse. If we have a war or other major spending, the same thing that happened under Bush will happen again (a pumped up economy and then a crash). Heck, even without war Trump is racking up major debt. This cannot be denied. All looks wonderful right now, but there are no crystal balls. One thing is clear . . . we need to make sure Social Security and Medicare are kept solvent as back stops. It doesn't matter how "rich" you might seem to be today . . . those are back stops for EVERYONE.

Climate change is going to be the much bigger issue affecting the economy. Even Trump can't stop that.

Climate change has already cost the US billions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the meantime, I'm a middle earner with a nearly 40% increase in my retirement account this year, and my mother's money has gone up so much that we can afford to keep her in the nice assisted living place for at least another few years. One of my friends lost her job at age 63 (63!!) and, due to the low unemployment rate, was able to find a new job within weeks. Others, earning lower-level wages, have seen increases for the first time in a decade. It's been very good for the bulk of Americans.

Congratulations. You realize that by having ANYTHING in the market, that puts you in the top 25% of the country in terms of wealth, right?

Not true.

Over 50% of adults have direct or indirect holdings of stock. Thirty percent of adults in the lower 50th percentile of income own stock. Many of the adults who don't own are young and are not yet interested in saving for retirement.

https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/sep/18/ro-khanna/what-percentage-americans-own-stocks/

DP - but effectively only the very rich have any significant stake. As the link describes, the comment should have been:
"Most Americans Don’t Have a Real Stake in the Stock Market."

OMG. That's the ridiculous analysis that liberals get stuck on: "Most of the stock money is in the rich people's hands!"

I say, "so what"? I'm not looking around at rich people and resentful that they have more. I'm focused on saving into my 403B (they have an excellent match of 10%), and I expect to have close to $1 million by the time I am in my mid-60s. I say that's pretty good for someone who is a middle earner. Why would you not care about people like me, hard workers with "medium" incomes, who have saved their entire lives so they would be comfortable in retirement? It doesn't bother you at all that HALF of Americans are in my boat, and would suffer greatly if a socialist got a chance to enact his economy-destroying policies? Are you SO intent on hurting the rich that you don't care that half of Americans would be hurt as well?

Wow. Your entire retirement could disappear if a Democrat is elected.

It seems to me that if half the country could lose their retirement savings based on the outcome of a single election, then that isn't a very good retirement system. It also seems like maybe the economy isn't roaring if it all depends on a single election.

No. People's entire retirement could disappear if a SOCIALIST is elected.

It seems to me that if half the country could lose their retirement savings if a socialist is elected, then it isn't a very good idea to elect an economy-destroying socialist. But if leftists have really gone that crazy that they are willing to see half of America lose their retirement savings in order to give more free stuff away others, then yes....we need to protect our money from the crazy leftist policies. I plan to move at least half my money into cash if one of the two socialists are the nominee.

Good thing there aren't any actual socialists running for president. So you don't have to worry about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
My 401K is up 12% since Dec 1. Jesus H

Unglaublich

The leftists hate when "ordinary" people (meaning those who never earned six figures) save their money, invest for retirement, and see big increases under Trump. The market is almost 60% since he was elected!



So awful!!@!!!

Who's going to vote crazy Dem with a growing 401k and 529 for their kids?


It’s not sustainable you dummy


Hilarious. Looking for bad economic news so they can win elections. No wonder democrats hate capitalism. Independence, self sufficiently, and orange man bad!

It seems to me that the "great recession" of 2008 did not happen under a "socialist" (if we are saying that the president has a lot to do with the economy). People do remember that. They also remember that a more liberal president was the one who had to stabilize the situation. Was it perfect? Heck no. However, it could have been worse. If we have a war or other major spending, the same thing that happened under Bush will happen again (a pumped up economy and then a crash). Heck, even without war Trump is racking up major debt. This cannot be denied. All looks wonderful right now, but there are no crystal balls. One thing is clear . . . we need to make sure Social Security and Medicare are kept solvent as back stops. It doesn't matter how "rich" you might seem to be today . . . those are back stops for EVERYONE.

Climate change is going to be the much bigger issue affecting the economy. Even Trump can't stop that.

DP. The Great Recession had as it roots the liberal dream of "equality" - and in this case, that even low-income people are entitled to own their own homes. So while there wasn't a socialist at the helm when the Great Recession took root, the ideal behind it - "everyone gets a house!" - did indeed smack of socialism. Sorry, but cocktail waitresses and retail clerks with a HS degree earning $40,000 are NOT entitled to buy a $400,000 townhouse with a "no-doc" loan.

(Reminds me of a woman I know, who barely squeaked through high school and now works in a low-level office job. She was complaining to me (yes, to me) that it "isn't fair" that I have a nice home and she can only afford to rent. My response to her was that maybe she could take some classes at the local community college and work into a higher-paying job, and she told me she was "too tired" after a day of work to go to night class.)

The issue wasn’t fundamentally affordable/subprime loans.

It was unscrupulous and unregulated loan officers and, more importantly, greedy and unregulated banks who padded their securities with junk.

Trump has been trying to dismantle important regulations to prevent these which just puts us all at risk again.

[Anonymous]

I love it. Dubya was President for 8 years and at the end of his term, after an ill-conceived war costing at that time, hundreds of billions, and an ill-conceived tax cut, the economy collapsed and somehow it is the democrats (or socialists) fault.

Prior to Dubya, Bill Clinton had 8 years in office, saw significant GDP, wage and prosperity growth and was running a budget surplus.

After Dubya, Obama came in, and despite the strict fiscal restraint demanded by the GOP, managed to stabilize the economy and get everything moving in the direction of growth, including the beloved DOW.

So two recent examples of 8 years of sustained growth under the stewardship of the democrats and now Trump is supercharging our debt and deficit spending with the same economic yield that Obama managed to capture in the face of a castastrophic economic situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love it. Dubya was President for 8 years and at the end of his term, after an ill-conceived war costing at that time, hundreds of billions, and an ill-conceived tax cut, the economy collapsed and somehow it is the democrats (or socialists) fault.

Prior to Dubya, Bill Clinton had 8 years in office, saw significant GDP, wage and prosperity growth and was running a budget surplus.

After Dubya, Obama came in, and despite the strict fiscal restraint demanded by the GOP, managed to stabilize the economy and get everything moving in the direction of growth, including the beloved DOW.

So two recent examples of 8 years of sustained growth under the stewardship of the democrats and now Trump is supercharging our debt and deficit spending with the same economic yield that Obama managed to capture in the face of a castastrophic economic situation.

All excellent points. Unfortunately, MAGAs have no interest in reality.

[Anonymous]

Trump is not "pro-business." He is pro-corruption. He is running economic policy as a quid pro quo bribery scheme. Support him unconditionally and he will exempt you from tariffs, taxes, investigations, etc. Criticize him and he will direct his government to investigate you, design policies to discriminate against you, and interfere with any government contracts or other business you may have.

If you are a true believer in functioning free markets where economic transactions are honest and transparent, and companies are rewarded for quality and efficiency rather than for corruption and fraud, then you should support Elizabeth Warren.

[Anonymous]

Economy is roaring.

Democrats can't stand it, and this thread full of their squirming about it is epic entertainment.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news to you Democrats: It'll be another 4 years of Trump simply because of the economy alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Economy is roaring.

Democrats can't stand it, and this thread full of their squirming about it is epic entertainment.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news to you Democrats: It'll be another 4 years of Trump simply because of the economy alone.

Economy will be great and we'll all be dead.

[Anonymous]

The markets are generally roaring.

The "economy" in terms of real wages, household income, manufacturing and retail sectors, debt and deficit spending, debt to income ratios are all a mess.

But hey, MY 401k is awesome.

[Anonymous]

This economy is hot. If you aren’t making money you are:
Not trying
Not interested
Not breathing

I know people getting pay raises for just being at their job—the company doesn’t want them to go someplace else and make the company compete for new hires.

A-ma-zing