The Reality of the Trump Economy

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Immulated??

To be clear, I voted for Reagan twice. But the fact is that in 1936 FDR, a rather left wing Democrat, beat Alf Landon 531 electoral votes to 8. Reagan's electoral vote victory in 1984 was 525-13. Reagan got 59% of the popular vote and FDR 61%. So your last statement is incorrect. And your statement that Reagan's 1984 win was the largest land slide in history is incorrect.

However, I think Reagan's margin of victory in 1984 will not be duplicated in a long, long time, if ever, by either party.

FDR had better electoral votes percentage wise at 98.5%. RR at 97.6%, Nixon at 96.7%.

RR had the most electoral votes at 525/538. FDR only had 523/531. Nixon at 520/538.

FDR did not top anyone on the electoral vote list.

Washington is 1st on electoral vote at 100%

followed by James Monroe at 99.7%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...College_margin

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by bb1961

https://www.thoughtco.com/landslide-...-votes-3367489
Wrong again Speed...let chim-chim take over!!
Republican Ronald Reagan won the most electoral votes of ANY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY, 525. But that was after seven more electoral votes were added to the prize. His 525 electoral votes represented 97.6 percent of all 538 electoral votes.



Nixon did it in 72'(republican)

You definitely would never admit why staunch conservatism sells every time either

I see you conveniently left out the make up of the electoral college at that time (allotted votes) in regards to fdr...Reagan only lost one state as Nixon and fdr lost two...parse it anyway you like.
I have no problem saying I a proud staunch conservative...but MANY on the left have a problem identifying as liberal...now it's "democratic socialist" or progressive...what ever the fuck that means?? Why not be proud of you ideology instead of changing the terminology to make it more obscure.

AOC has turned the DEMS up side down..."raw new deal" the spineless left voting "present"...that bitch will the down fall of that party.

By the way fdr's politics would NEVER sell today...on the other hand Reagan's ideology would win landslides over and over AGAIN!!
I will give you an A++++ for effort...but still you failed!!

You are right on one statement -- Reagan did get more electoral votes in 1984 than FDR did in 1936. I misread the chart. But FDR got a higher % of the available electoral votes. As Dilbert pointed out. The point is that sometimes people elect Democrats and sometimes they vote for Republicans. And sometimes by a great majority. Either way.

My political views, based on 2 tests I've taken put me slightly left of center. Proud of it. You can call me a liberal, Democratic socialist, or progressive. Labels like that to me are meaningless.

You make ridiculous assumptions about Conservatives vs. Liberals. Not even worthwhile debating with you. We will see in November 2020 where the mood of this country's voters is.

[Hotrod511]

Poster's complain about being on topic so what does the electoral vote have to do with the Trump economy

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Hotrod511

Poster's complain about being on topic so what does the electoral vote have to do with the Trump economy

lol. Including your post there have been 168 post in this thread. How many have been "on topic"? As long as the discussion is within the realm of valid political dialogue I have no problem with the discussion moving in different directions. It is up to the mods to warn posters to remain on topic if they deem it necessary.

[Austin Ellen]

Speaking of the economy. I just bought a house in San Antonio. Wrote a check for the earnest money and will be writing a check at closing. No mortgage for me. God, I love Trump. This never would of happened under Obama.

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

lol. Including your post there have been 168 post in this thread. How many have been "on topic"? As long as the discussion is within the realm of valid political dialogue I have no problem with the discussion moving in different directions. It is up to the mods to warn posters to remain on topic if they deem it necessary.

Well here's another one the OP had a very short sentence about the Trump economy, then started bashing the Steeler's about 90% of the post in this thread are off topic

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You are right on one statement -- Reagan did get more electoral votes in 1984 than FDR did in 1936. I misread the chart. But FDR got a higher % of the available electoral votes. As Dilbert pointed out. The point is that sometimes people elect Democrats and sometimes they vote for Republicans. And sometimes by a great majority. Either way.

My political views, based on 2 tests I've taken put me slightly left of center. Proud of it. You can call me a liberal, Democratic socialist, or progressive. Labels like that to me are meaningless.

You make ridiculous assumptions about Conservatives vs. Liberals. Not even worthwhile debating with you. We will see in November 2020 where the mood of this country's voters is.

What I said before...fdr policies would NEVER win a presidential election today...where as President Reagan's stanch conservative policies would win presidential landslides EVERY TIME...you conveniently dismissed addressing that.
I guess the Socialism in Venezuela is meaningless...since labels are meaningless to you...please don't tell that to the people there.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Speaking of the economy. I just bought a house in San Antonio. Wrote a check for the earnest money and will be writing a check at closing. No mortgage for me. God, I love Trump. This never would of happened under Obama.

Sure you did Ellen. LOL

[dilbert firestorm]

ah.. the ugly mug finally shows up!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by bb1961

What I said before...fdr policies would NEVER win a presidential election today...where as President Reagan's stanch conservative policies would win presidential landslides EVERY TIME...you conveniently dismissed addressing that.
I guess the Socialism in Venezuela is meaningless...since labels are meaningless to you...please don't tell that to the people there.

There is absolutely zero proof to your first paragraph. Pure speculation. 4 of the last 7 presidents elected have been Democrats (AKA Liberals). Clinton twice and Obama Twice. Bush twice and Trump once. No winning Democrat had less electoral votes than any winning Republican. So much for your "theory" that the Conservative candidates are more successful than the Liberal candidates.

You, like Trump seemingly is doing, are stressing the socialistic side of Democrats as a huge negative. Didn't work in 1992, 1996, 2008 or 2012. Scare politics rarely work. Obama was POTUS for 8 years and there was little he put through that would be considered socialism.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Speaking of the economy. I just bought a house in San Antonio. Wrote a check for the earnest money and will be writing a check at closing. No mortgage for me. God, I love Trump. This never would of happened under Obama.

Congratulations. However, since you were broke during the Obama years you didn't benefit from the rapid rise in the stock market like I and most others did. We've been through this several times but it just doesn't seem to sink in. The rise in the stock market during Obama's time in office averaged much higher than Trump's time in office. So why wouldn't this have happened under Obama?

BTW, in times of increasing home values, most financial advisers would tell you to take out a mortgage. Especially with such low interest rates. That way you make money on YOUR money and the bank's money. Duh.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Congratulations. However, since you were broke during the Obama years you didn't benefit from the rapid rise in the stock market like I and most other did. We've been through this several times but it just doesn't seem to sink in. The rise in the stock market during Obama's time in office averaged much higher than Trump's time in office. So why wouldn't this have happened under Obama?

Yes we have been through it several times. The market did very well under Obama, but no thanks to his policies. The country was at the nadir of one of our worst recessions since before World War II when he took office, so there was no place for the stock market to go but up.

That said, you’re wrong, the market has averaged higher under Trump than Obama. From a few days ago in this thread,

Originally Posted by Tiny

The Dow Jones Industrial Average on the day Trump took office was 19827. On Friday it closed at 25,502. That's an increase of 28.6%. If it continues to increase at that rate, it would close at around 63,000 when Trump left office after serving two terms.

The DJIA increased from 7949 to 19,827 under Obama. So it would grow more under Trump than Obama if it keeps up its current rate of increase. Is that likely to happen? IMHO, hell no, I don't think it will be anywhere close to 63000. Obama had the "advantage" of taking office when share prices were extremely depressed, while Trump started in more normal times.
Anyway, who won the Super Bowl has a much stronger effect on share prices than who's president.

And so what, how much does the president have to do with stock market performance? Usually, not much, but Trump’s cut in the corporate tax rate had a very positive effect:

Originally Posted by Tiny

How much difference does the president make to stock market performance? He doesn't have some kind of magic wand he can wave that will boost corporate earnings, decrease interest rates, or increase multiples investors pay for stocks. Trump came the closest to magic wand waving when he lowered the corporate income tax rate, which was long overdo and a move favored by Obama when he was president. That increased after tax corporate earnings, which do have a strong effect on share prices.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Yes we have been through it several times. The market did very well under Obama, but no thanks to his policies. The country was at the nadir of one of our worst recessions since before World War II when he took office, so there was no place for the stock market to go but up.

That said, you’re wrong, the market has averaged higher under Trump than Obama. From a few days ago in this thread,

And so what, how much does the president have to do with stock market performance? Usually, not much, but Trump’s cut in the corporate tax rate had a very positive effect:

In comparing stock market results, it depends on when you start and finish. If you look at the DJIA under Obama, it rose 33% in his first 2 years in office compared to the 26% of Trump in his first 2 years. And if you look at the DJIA under Obama from the time it hit its nadir a few months after his taking office, it would be better. The reduction in the corporate tax rate was a one time stimulus to the economy which is expected to fade away over the next few years. The market may or may not keep up its rise.

I don't want to get in an argument over it. The market did very well under Obama and very well under Trump without determining "Why?" The point I was making to AE was she said she could not have made money under Obama that she made under Trump. I say had she had the money to invest under Obama she would have had a lot more today than she would starting with Trump. The Obama years were very good to me financially.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

In comparing stock market results, it depends on when you start and finish. If you look at the DJIA under Obama, it rose 33% in his first 2 years in office compared to the 26% of Trump in his first 2 years. And if you look at the DJIA under Obama from the time it hit its nadir a few months after his taking office, it would be better. The reduction in the corporate tax rate was a one time stimulus to the economy which is expected to fade away over the next few years. The market may or may not keep up its rise.

I don't want to get in an argument over it. The market did very well under Obama and very well under Trump without determining "Why?" The point I was making to AE was she said she could not have made money under Obama that she made under Trump. I say had she had the money to invest under Obama she would have had a lot more today than she would starting with Trump. The Obama years were very good to me financially.

Moscow Ellen made all that money in the land of glitter and make believe lol

[Austin Ellen]

Well thanks Speedracer, I guess.
My goal has always been to be debt free. I have now achieved that goal. All under Trump. Not Obama.
I'm going to retire in September. Well, I'm sorta retired now but there are some honeys I just can't give up. Lol.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Congratulations. However, since you were broke during the Obama years you didn't benefit from the rapid rise in the stock market like I and most others did. We've been through this several times but it just doesn't seem to sink in. The rise in the stock market during Obama's time in office averaged much higher than Trump's time in office. So why wouldn't this have happened under Obama?

BTW, in times of increasing home values, most financial advisers would tell you to take out a mortgage. Especially with such low interest rates. That way you make money on YOUR money and the bank's money. Duh.