Thread Rating:

gamerfreak
gamerfreak
Joined: Dec 28, 2014
  • Threads: 48
  • Posts: 3188
Thanks for this post from:
ams288
April 10th, 2018 at 10:26:24 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

If you are just rating a president by 401k I'll take Trump. Over any Democrat.


Given your profession, I would think that you have the ability to look at numbers and data with complete impartiality. So this makes no sense to me.

How was your 401k doing towards the end of the GWB administration?
Steverinos
Steverinos
Joined: Jul 6, 2016
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 1420
April 10th, 2018 at 10:30:05 AM permalink
Quote: TigerWu

TRUMP HIMSELF said the economy does better under Democrats.



And throughout the last 100 years of history, in just about every measurement, it most definitely does do better under Democrats. In some cases, it's not even close.
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 177
  • Posts: 10091
April 10th, 2018 at 12:39:31 PM permalink
In the roughly seven years it has been in existence, the CFPB has returned $3.97 billion in cash back to American consumers through enforcement actions and an additional $7.93 billion in other types of relief, such as lower loan balances or debt relief, based on the CFPB's records. The bureau estimates roughly one of every 10 Americans has received some sort of reimbursement or relief due to the bureau's enforcement work since it was created.

In the 135 days since Trump appointed chief took over, the CFPB has filed ZERO new charges and started ZERO new investigations. They did, however, secure nice raises for several Trump appointees to it. More money for no work. Who doesn't love that?

When my Mother passed away in 2015, Cap One pretty much refused to close several of her accounts, in spite of me having all the required legal documentation.
She died in November 2015. Capital just kept denying me access to the accounts. In October of 2016, I finally contacted the CFPB. A week later, a new representative from CapOne contacted me by phone, agreed to Fed Ex a check for everything owed, and tried to blame a software error.
The whole purpose of the CFPB is to give consumers an advocate when dealing with large, indifferent , institutions. trump appears to have turned it into a patronage zone for his underlings and lackeys.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO 
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 108
  • Posts: 7510
April 10th, 2018 at 12:44:21 PM permalink
Quote: Steverinos

Of course that's not the only measurement. But if it were, let's look at the numbers:

The long run historical average of nominal return on US stocks is 9.5%, from 1900 to 2016.

First year of Trump administration:

US delivered roughly 24.6% return, more than doubled the 9.5% long run average. However, international stocks turned in a 29.8% return. U.S. stocks lagged behind international by 5.2% vs. the historical average of besting international stocks by 2.2%. (America first?). U.S. stocks under Trump performed roughly 7.4 percentage points LOWER than the long-run historical average.

First year of Obama administration: U.S. up 47.2% but lagged international by 14.4 points.

First term of Obama administration: U.S. up 19.9% annually and bested international by 3.4 points.

Both terms of Obama administration: U.S. up 16.5% annually and bested international by 7.2 points.

Point being, taking Trump "over any democrat" in regards to the stock market doesn't really add up. Especially when you consider when Trump actually started passing financial legislation (tax reform), the market hasn't exactly reacted positively. And yes, you could argue that stock gains were easier to come by when Obama took over because the economy was on the brink of collapse. But he had to make tough decisions to get it going again, while Trump took over a strong market and economy and basically just had to not f**k it up.

Here's the source:

https://www.financial-planning.com/news/trump-vs-obama-who-had-best-1st-year-stock-market-gains

The other real difference between the two is Obama didn't go around brag tweeting about it.



Comparing relative performance of US stocks to foreign stocks is not relevant at all. You know that international stocks are extremely correlated to US news, just like US stocks? And I happen to own many foreign stocks through ADRs or ETFs, so saying foreign stocks have done well during Trump's reign is a positive, not a negative! Causality can never be proven (or disproven), but the overall economy/stock market has improved during Trump's reign. I think the two positives are the business friendly concepts a Republican has over a Democrat, and these were born out just during the time from when Trump was elected until he actually was President, and the business friendly tax laws he passed. These have overridden the many negatives (fear of him starting a war, fear of Russian influence, fear of his next tweet, alienating the Muslim world) that are associated with Trump.

Your argument to me smells of someone who just won't acknowledge that good things have happened during the Trump first year,(not even including the election to inauguration time), trying to spin that his 25% gain is not good. As I have stated many times, the anti-Trumpers would not give him credit for ANYTHING, thereby limiting the value of their claims. More biased than CNN, or Fox News.....
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 167
  • Posts: 9897
April 10th, 2018 at 1:41:03 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

business friendly



The definition of Republican's "business friendly" Just an example.

The Trump administration rolled back offshore drilling rules put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 workers and spewed millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
SOOPOO
SOOPOO 
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 108
  • Posts: 7510
April 10th, 2018 at 1:57:53 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

The definition of Republican's "business friendly" Just an example.

The Trump administration rolled back offshore drilling rules put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 workers and spewed millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.



As I've posted many times before, "business friendly" does not always mean good for the country. A law which would prevent you from suing a drilling company if it spills oil is "business friendly" towards Halliburton. But likely not good for the country. Nonetheless, if such a law was passed, Halliburton shares would rise.

But I have a friend who is (was, he just sold to a major national company) a small business owner. He says the layer and layer of silly rules he is hamstrung by limited his ability to run his business, unreasonably so. Most of which were local City of Buffalo regulations (Democrat run) which do not exist in the suburbs (Republican run). When it came time for him to expand, where do you think he went? Many of the rules were just excuses for the government to have its hands in his pockets, no more, no less.
Steverinos
Steverinos
Joined: Jul 6, 2016
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 1420
April 10th, 2018 at 2:15:43 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Comparing relative performance of US stocks to foreign stocks is not relevant at all. You know that international stocks are extremely correlated to US news, just like US stocks? And I happen to own many foreign stocks through ADRs or ETFs, so saying foreign stocks have done well during Trump's reign is a positive, not a negative! Causality can never be proven (or disproven), but the overall economy/stock market has improved during Trump's reign. I think the two positives are the business friendly concepts a Republican has over a Democrat, and these were born out just during the time from when Trump was elected until he actually was President, and the business friendly tax laws he passed. These have overridden the many negatives (fear of him starting a war, fear of Russian influence, fear of his next tweet, alienating the Muslim world) that are associated with Trump.

Your argument to me smells of someone who just won't acknowledge that good things have happened during the Trump first year,(not even including the election to inauguration time), trying to spin that his 25% gain is not good. As I have stated many times, the anti-Trumpers would not give him credit for ANYTHING, thereby limiting the value of their claims. More biased than CNN, or Fox News.....



All I did was lay out the facts, the numbers, and the sourcing. You decide for yourself how YOU want to spin those numbers.

I'm not denying that the economy is good right now. But I would definitely argue that the economy has remained on the track set forth by the previous administration. #thanksObama

Why do you think the economy, historically, does better under Democrats? Especially when you think of the "business friendly concepts they have over democrats"? Why do you think Trump said this?

Steverinos
Steverinos
Joined: Jul 6, 2016
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 1420
April 10th, 2018 at 2:18:25 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

As I've posted many times before, "business friendly" does not always mean good for the country. A law which would prevent you from suing a drilling company if it spills oil is "business friendly" towards Halliburton. But likely not good for the country. Nonetheless, if such a law was passed, Halliburton shares would rise.

But I have a friend who is (was, he just sold to a major national company) a small business owner. He says the layer and layer of silly rules he is hamstrung by limited his ability to run his business, unreasonably so. Most of which were local City of Buffalo regulations (Democrat run) which do not exist in the suburbs (Republican run). When it came time for him to expand, where do you think he went? Many of the rules were just excuses for the government to have its hands in his pockets, no more, no less.



Cite specific examples and the history behind those rules and why they were implemented. Only then can you begin to have a "reasonable" discussion on whether or not those rules were "unreasonable".
SOOPOO
SOOPOO 
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 108
  • Posts: 7510
April 10th, 2018 at 2:35:14 PM permalink
Quote: Steverinos

Cite specific examples and the history behind those rules and why they were implemented. Only then can you begin to have a "reasonable" discussion on whether or not those rules were "unreasonable".



I've had that discussion with him. It was reasonable. I believed him. I guess I can tell you about my own business and the plain silly rules I have to follow. (I am not saying mine are Republican or Democrat inspired). I may start a new thread later on silly regulations....
Boz
Boz
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
  • Threads: 154
  • Posts: 5701
April 10th, 2018 at 2:37:02 PM permalink
Quote: Steverinos

All I did was lay out the facts, the numbers, and the sourcing. You decide for yourself how YOU want to spin those numbers.

I'm not denying that the economy is good right now. But I would definitely argue that the economy has remained on the track set forth by the previous administration. #thanksObama

Why do you think the economy, historically, does better under Democrats? Especially when you think of the "business friendly concepts they have over democrats"? Why do you think Trump said this?



Because he is a liar? You seem to believe he lies about everything else, why not this?

  • Jump to: