I laughed.Originally Posted by 2thDoc
I voted for Carson in the primaries. After he didn’t win I looked hard at the libertarian candidate but agreed more with what trump was saying. So he got my vote
Senior Member
I laughed.
I voted for Carson in the primaries. After he didn’t win I looked hard at the libertarian candidate but agreed more with what trump was saying. So he got my vote
So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. —Colossians 2:6–7
Senior Member
Let us know who you voted for so we can scrutinize them.
Moderator
"BILL'S ECONOMY" was nothing more than a byproduct of the .com/internet/tech boom!
He just happened to be there at the right time....
\"I never saw a wild thing feel sorry for itself. A small bird will drop dead frozen from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.\" <br />D.H. LAWRENCE
Senior Member
He doesn't live in my head but he does have a special place in my heart. He slayed the dragons.
Black Duck
In all seriousness, Cali, that is exactly my point.
"hunting should be a challenge and a passion not a way of making a living or a road to fame"
Rubberhead
Senior Member
The original question seems like a fair question to me.
I have personally struggled with the balance of wanting a conservative president who is not afraid to be buck the system and his constant rants that are often not based in fact.
I do like having the new supreme court justices too.
Point is that I think the OP asked a fair question, I don't think it is fair to jump his shit because he asked it.
Moderator
Jenks, I won't disagree but in all seriousness I don't believe a damn thing coming out of DC these days!
\"I never saw a wild thing feel sorry for itself. A small bird will drop dead frozen from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.\" <br />D.H. LAWRENCE
Senior Member
The differences is the number of economist and money managers predicted a crash or major downturn if Trump won and not an extended bull run, GDP reaching 4% and record low employment. Sure the market will cool especially with rate hikes at some point but per the predictions so far were clearly scare tactics or many were wrong. They began linking the president with markets. Now that they were vastly wrong they want to go back to the premise the presidents policy are not linked to the market.
Last edited by Bigtimber2; 10-30-2018 at 08:37 PM.
Senior Member
Oh I certainly agree with that and don't get me started on the news cycle.
Black Duck
If you follow serious money management and not slanted news media, I don't think you would have that perspective. As I see it, the one thing Trump is solely responsible for are the tariffs. Yes, he did sign the tax
reform bill but any R would have. The common theory of it's impact is the "sugar high" and so far that seems to be pretty much in tact. The tariff impacts should take a while but we're seeing earnings disappointments from companies like CAT and they are pointing to the tariffs. The biggest bubble risk that I've read about is the corporate debt situation. It's analogous to the consumer debt situation from a decade ago. Free money has a cost. The timing of the market cycle puts the probabilities of major correction in our near future and any President from any party would be facing those odds. If we had a President that wanted to deal in facts and do things to hedge the country against the worst possible scenarios, I'd be a bigger fan.
Last edited by Stripa Swipa; 10-31-2018 at 07:24 AM.
"hunting should be a challenge and a passion not a way of making a living or a road to fame"
Rubberhead
No Loaf'n
Fear not. We'll bail out CAT just like we did soybeans and corn. Notice now how everyone who was complaining about ethanol are now big fans of biofuels.
Senior Member
The biggest problem facing our democratic republic is the national debt. In my opinion, we will have no real leaders in Congress or the White House until we have a leader willing to tackle our biggest problem. The irony is that money has so saturated politics that our "leaders" are more worried about self preservation, raising money and getting reelected rather than actually governing.
DILLIGAF
Black Duck
Fox viewership is on social security and Medicare. Debt not important now.
Last edited by Stripa Swipa; 10-31-2018 at 09:57 AM.
"hunting should be a challenge and a passion not a way of making a living or a road to fame"
Rubberhead
Senior Member
It is the single most threat to national security and everyone is sitting on their hands.
DILLIGAF
Senior Member
Of course National Debt is the biggest threat to our national security and future? Most realize we have borrowed more than we can ever pay back and there will be a day of reckoning. But running on Draconian cuts is not a way to win an election, slash SS, Medicaid, Welfare raise taxes 10% to reduce the debt is not winner all though it should be. If a politican could win on that platform they would run on it.
The Kock Bros (Cato Institute) are libertarians with 8 times the money of Soro and they cannot get their ideology in DC beyond a few senators in small population states. The Heritage Foundation is less funded but now their people fill many positions that liberals did 3 years ago and adding more every day. We now have conservative doers looking out and ideologues looking in.
"Sugar High" is another buzz word by the same money reporters that predicted the market crash. Surely, they will be correct one day as long they continue to move bar. Few can find a bubble yet alone predict when it will burst. Caterpillar year over years earnings is fine. Their estimated earnings may be down due to tariffs and shipping cost due to high global demand. Their estimated earnings was up due to corp tax cuts. So while not knocking it out of the park the tax cuts are offsetting the tariff increase. You can be sure they would choose the tax cut and a pending trade war over the only other option in 2016.
Trump may lose the trade war we shall see. I am content with him fighting it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Black Duck
It's actually the "Koch" Brothers and you should do some more research to understand how they came to be "libertarians."
Sugar high is a perfect analogy for what you would expect this tax change to produce. I don't know enough about your financial knowledge to know the best way to explain why.
I do have some respect your responses as of late. You're making decent cases for your positions, I just think your sources are keeping your perspective a little skewed given the politics of the day.
"hunting should be a challenge and a passion not a way of making a living or a road to fame"
Rubberhead
Senior Member
Not sure I have many sources other than years of following markets for years my only go to sources other than WSJ and keep track of what Mulvaney is saying. Usually when I read an article I click the @ to see what they are tweeting usually with a "sugar high" author the tweets look like a left wing Mergie.
I am sure if the markets, GDP and employment continue another 2 years. You and others anti-Trumpers will have a new narrative with selective data. Democrats are still saying Regan 81' cuts were bad.
One thing about money markets there is two "experts" with different views from the same data points. You can find a bull for every bear. The market has always expanded over time so everyone eventually wins if they stay in. Predicting it is impossible. The fundamentals work over time.
Granted, I am bias Trump's unexpected win and steel tariffs have become a windfall for me.
Last edited by Bigtimber2; 10-31-2018 at 12:14 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks