The Trump Presidency – 2016

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by panerd

I think everyone is being thrown off by the large numbers as well. I mean 5% sucks but the Dow isn’t even down for the month right now. I do find it interesting that everyone is coming out the woodwork now and placing this all at Trumps feet while denying the growth for the past year. Man talk about turning on a dime of having your cake and eating it too. Partisan politics, not surprising but still funny. Go back a few pages and reread Quiksand’s level headed take on the economy.

Not even down for the month? It's down around 2000 for the month.

[EagleFan]

It's also down from the start of the year so where are you getting this not down for the month idea?

[sabotai]

The Dow Jones finished at 24,345.75 today (Feb 5th), that's the lowest since Dec 8th (2 months ago) when it closed at 24,329.19.

The S&P 500 closed at 2648.94, the lowest since Dec 7th (2 months ago) at 2636.98.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think it's just making fun of him. He assumed every time the DOW went up it was because of him. So when it goes down, it has to be on him too.

I personally don't think the President has much control over the day-to-day ups and downs but he sure does.

Yeah I do this a lot I guess but I was talking more general and less just about specifically FOFC. There are a lot on my social media feed and at work that are I think enjoying this and would probably not even mind a real crash. Don't get me wrong there were just as many (more?) on the other side that would have loved to see "Obama's market" crash as well. Which is what is so fucking stupid about partisan politics. I mean unless you have your money in gold or diamonds who doesn't have something in their lives tied to the success of the stock market?

I agree Trump is an idiot about most things but I will take him bragging about the market if it brings me gains on my investments.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Not even down for the month? It's down around 2000 for the month.

OK OK. Two things.

1. I think most people understand down for the month to mean past 30 days not literally February but I meant last 30 days obviously.

2. I also admit I misread a chart and read December as January. Point being though its not like the crash of '87 that wiped out an entire year in one day or '08 that wiped out like a decade by the time it was done. It could get there for sure but we have had 4-5% drops before it's just the number 1000 attached to it that seems like we are headed to 1929.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The hard core guys, they will stick with him. Others that realize he did not cause it (or cause the run up to this point), will stick with him. Most moderates will probably dump him if they have not already.

Agree except that I do believe this is (or was) a Trump rally.

I think it was more a rally of what people "believed" Trump could do for taxes, healthcare, small businesses, infrastructure etc.

To be clear, Obama certainly recovered us from the Great Recession and laid the foundation for steady growth, lower unemployment etc. but if Hillary had won, don't think the markets would have rallied so much ... so IMO he gets the majority of credit for stock market boom last year.

Does he own this downswing (possible collapse). May be wrong, I don't think so or at least, not the majority of it. There's nothing he has said or done that I know of that would have cause this sudden collapse. The TV pundits are all talking over themselves, I'm sure there will be a reasonable post-mortem after this is over.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

I mean unless you have your money in gold or diamonds who doesn't have something in their lives tied to the success of the stock market?

Not to pick, but just to make a point a lot of people miss, about half the country has no money in the market and 85% of stocks are owned by 10% of the population. Now you can argue that the market is a reflection of the general health of the economy, and to some extent it is, but it can go up or down a good amount and have no effect on a lot of the public.

And it can drop for reasons that are contrary to the good of most of the public. The current dive was precipitated by fears of what rising wages might mean for profits.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not to pick, but just to make a point a lot of people miss, about half the country has no money in the market and 85% of stocks are owned by 10% of the population. Now you can argue that the market is a reflection of the general health of the economy, and to some extent it is, but it can go up or down a good amount and have no effect on a lot of the public.

And it can drop for reasons that are contrary to the good of most of the public. The current dive was precipitated by fears of what rising wages might mean for profits.

So if Walmart's stock nosedives they aren't going to have to lay off any employees? John Q. Public who has a government pension isn't counting on stock market gains? Maybe I am that out of touch as teacher with both a pension dependent on the market and private IRA's (wouldn't consider myself part of the "elite") but to say it won't effect 50% of the country seems way off.

[Edward64]

Right now Dow is up +1.37% and Nasdaq is down -3.31%

Kinda crazy, don't think I've seen this wide of difference before.

[Thomkal]

You knew he couldn't stay away from this...

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago




So disgraceful that a person illegally in our country killed @Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson. This is just one of many such preventable tragedies. We must get the Dems to get tough on the Border, and with illegal immigration, FAST!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

So if Walmart's stock nosedives they aren't going to have to lay off any employees? John Q. Public who has a government pension isn't counting on stock market gains? Maybe I am that out of touch as teacher with both a pension dependent on the market and private IRA's (wouldn't consider myself part of the "elite") but to say it won't effect 50% of the country seems way off.

Eventually yes, but it would take a sizable loss. From Jan 29 to Feb 5 Wal-Mart stock dropped ten percent and there aren't announcements of layoffs.

The stats are clear that about half the country owns no stock, either individually or through funds/pensions.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by corbes

So it's "treasonous" not to applaud the Great Leader with sufficient enthusiasm?

Trump calls Democratic lawmakers who didn’t applaud him ‘treasonous,’ ‘un-American’ - The Washington Post

A tweet for every occasion.

The State Of The Union speech was one of the most boring, rambling and non-substantive I have heard in a long time. New leadership fast!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2016

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not to pick, but just to make a point a lot of people miss, about half the country has no money in the market and 85% of stocks are owned by 10% of the population. Now you can argue that the market is a reflection of the general health of the economy, and to some extent it is, but it can go up or down a good amount and have no effect on a lot of the public.

And it can drop for reasons that are contrary to the good of most of the public. The current dive was precipitated by fears of what rising wages might mean for profits.

The stock market affects a lot more than the immediate ownership value. The economic loss doesn't just stop there. It goes on and filters into the economy in general.

I'm interjecting in the middle of your discussion here and I have no real idea what you and anyone else is discussing in a broad sense. Just saying if you think the impact of the stock market losses stop at price valuation, I don't believe that is true.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

The stock market affects a lot more than the immediate ownership value. The economic loss doesn't just stop there. It goes on and filters into the economy in general.

I'm interjecting in the middle of your discussion here and I have no real idea what you and anyone else is discussing in a broad sense. Just saying if you think the impact of the stock market losses stop at price valuation, I don't believe that is true.

My general point is that the stock market has far less impact on half the country than would be expected given the media coverage of every high and low.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that y'all are both right.

The market affects more people than simply people who have direct investments.

But our day-to-day obsession with the market far outweighs its day-to-day effect on our lives.

[Edward64]

So you think you have it bad?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/xi...ney-2018-02-06

The VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short Term ETN XIV, -92.32% was created to give traders an opportunity to bet against a rise in volatility — the calmer the markets, the more profitable the trade. And it’s been one of the best plays out there amid the bull’s long and steady assault on new highs.

All that changed, however, when the stock market began to seriously flame out last week. The ultimate gut-shot landed Monday when the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, -0.13% was smacked with a record-setting retreat. The XIV dropped 90% after hours following the selloff, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake.

Nowhere was the pain more palpable than on Reddit’s “Trade XIV” group, which counts more than 1,800 members. One of them goes by the cyber-handle Lilkanna, and to say he’s had a rough stretch would be a huge understatement.

“I’ve lost $4 million, 3 years worth of work, and other people’s money,” he wrote in a post that’s garnering lots of attention. “Should I kill myself?”

First response: Absolutely not. Second: Show proof.

So Lilkanna posted this screenshot:

If he’s to be believed, wow. Brutal. How did it happen?

TBH, I don't feel bad for the guy but hope he doesn't off himself.

Declare bankruptcy, give up any hope on rebuilding relationships with people whose money he has lost and go overseas (somewhere remote) and teach english.

[stevew]

Trump’s ‘marching orders’ to the Pentagon: Plan a grand military parade - The Washington Post


wtf is this nonsense.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by stevew

Trump’s ‘marching orders’ to the Pentagon: Plan a grand military parade - The Washington Post


wtf is this nonsense.

Wow! We still have too many soldiers deployed with sub par gear and he wants a fucking parade that will cost millions. The fucking military isn't your toy ass clown.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Wow! We still have too many soldiers deployed with sub par gear and he wants a fucking parade that will cost millions. The fucking military isn't your toy ass clown.

Apparently it is. France had a big parade when he was there, so now we have to have a bigger one.

[BBT]

Originally Posted by stevew

Trump’s ‘marching orders’ to the Pentagon: Plan a grand military parade - The Washington Post


wtf is this nonsense.

Big waste of money.

[Chief Rum]

Am I the only one picturing the German Army marching in full party dress and Heil Hitlering the Fuhrer as they go by?

[Marmel]

Maybe we will burn books at this parade too?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Marmel

Maybe we will burnDemocrats[ at this parade too?

Fixed that for MAGA-ots. (waiting for a certain unnamed poster to say "This, but unironically")

Edit: I'm DEFINITELY not calling Marmel a MAGA. Just to make that clear

[miked]

Hannity and folks would have had a heart attack if Obama did this.

[cartman]

Where is Bill Murray from Stripes when you need him?

THAT'S THE FACTS, JACK!

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by miked

Hannity and folks would have had a heart attack if Obama did this.

I'm sure the same far right that was convinced Obama was going to make himself president for life would be perfectly fine with a misuse of our military.

[Ben E Lou]

So, what is his point here?

In the “old days,” when good news was reported, the Stock Market would go up. Today, when good news is reported, the Stock Market goes down. Big mistake, and we have so much good (great) news about the economy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 7, 2018

"Hey, all you investors, companies, fears, whims, little angels and devils on peoples' shoulders, and all the other myriad factors that determine whether the market is up or down, ALL OF YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG AND BETTER DO MAH BIDDING!!!"

[ISiddiqui]

That he doesn't understand the markets? Or the economy?

The markets fell due to the 'good news' because there was fear of future inflation. Or, worse*, that the Fed Chair would jack up interest rates to stave off inflation.

*depending on your point of view

[JPhillips]

I actually think he's right if he's saying that the market isn't necessarily a reflection of the health of the overall economy, but it's hard to make that point when you've also been arguing that the market is a reflection of the health of the overall economy.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I actually think he's right if he's saying that the market isn't necessarily a reflection of the health of the overall economy, but it's hard to make that point when you've also been arguing that the market is a reflection of the health of the overall economy.

And that clearly wasn't the point he was making. Dude is just dumb as fuck.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by stevew

Trump’s ‘marching orders’ to the Pentagon: Plan a grand military parade - The Washington Post


wtf is this nonsense.

Matthew Dowd‏Verified account @matthewjdowd









A guy with five military draft deferments wanting a military parade to honor himself, is a bit like Cruella De Vil wanting an award from the humane society for her treatment of Dalmatians.

[Logan]

Trump had a nice hair malfunction earlier today.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Apparently it is. France had a big parade when he was there, so now we have to have a bigger one.

I think he is trying to compensate for his missile envy.

[molson]

Trump would look better bald.

https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/qxcrOV1KDtZ...0%2Fimage1.jpg

It's sad enough to be so vain when you're over 70, but to protect THAT head of hair is just, confusing.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by molson

Trump would look better bald.

https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/qxcrOV1KDtZ...0%2Fimage1.jpg

It's sad enough to be so vain when you're over 70, but to protect THAT head of hair is just, confusing.

He'd have to put up with a week or so of Lex Luthor jokes from the liberals, but then they'd move on.

I agree with you that just accepting baldness would be less embarrassing for him.

[stevew]

He looks way better bald. Like the guy from murder one.

[cuervo72]

Daddy Warbucks.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Biggest Baddest Daddy Warbucks.

Fixed it

[RainMaker]

Only hiring the best people.

Hope Hicks' boyfriend Rob Porter resigns after abuse claim | Daily Mail Online

[JPhillips]

The WH knew for months.

[Edward64]

So the Senate comes up with some agreement and Pelosi spends 8 hours on the House floor talking about DACA.

Seems as if Schumer knows a losing proposition but Pelosi is doubling down and hoping that Ryan will support some semblance of a DACA deal (for the Wall?).

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/07/polit...own/index.html

[JPhillips]

I guarantee Schumer and Pelosi worked this out. The bill will pass, unless the Freedom Caucus kills it, and this gives cover.

[Edward64]

The current Senate bill does not have any DACA provisions. Are you saying Schumer and Pelosi are okay with this?

[JPhillips]

I'm saying that Schumer dealing with McConnell while Pelosi protests in the House, where she can't stop anything, is almost certainly planned and agreed to by both of them.

[SirFozzie]

except with the Free-dumb Cow-cuss screaming their head off, they need quite a few Democratic votes.

[JPhillips]

Just another reason to do this. Pelosi gives the Dems a reason to vote against the bill, Ryan can't deliver the Freedom Caucus, and then the GOP looks like idiots. All while avoiding a filibuster like last time.

Now I think it will pass, but I don't think this is evidence of a Dem split. It's all just theatre.

[Thomkal]

So Republicans in Wisconsin, PA, and NC are dealing with the fact that the Democrats are winning special elections, gerrymander battles, and "liberal judges" in their own unique and most likely illegal ways:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...he-states.html

[BBT]

Russians penetrated U.S. voter systems, top U.S. official says

The U.S. official in charge of protecting American elections from hacking says the Russians successfully penetrated the voter registration rolls of several U.S. states prior to the 2016 presidential election.

In an exclusive interview with NBC News, Jeanette Manfra, the head of cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security, said she couldn't talk about classified information publicly, but in 2016, "We saw a targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated."

Jeh Johnson, who was DHS secretary during the Russian intrusions, said, "2016 was a wake-up call and now it's incumbent upon states and the Feds to do something about it before our democracy is attacked again."

First, what constitutes an "exceptionally small number" in this case?

Second, glad we're not enforcing sanctions against a country actively targeting our elections. If Dems gain control, this needs to be a priority.

Third, anyone else a little concerned about Privacy Act info being compromised? I know the focus is on the election, but if hackers are perusing voter roles, they more than likely have access to SSNs, DL#s, and other pertinent info.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by BBT

Russians penetrated U.S. voter systems, top U.S. official says



First, what constitutes an "exceptionally small number" in this case?

Don't know about this case, but with a starting sample of 21, having them successfully penetrate "them", meaning plural, meaning at least 2, means a hit rate of no lower than 9.5%.

In my corporate world, a failure rate that high would be met with the fury of a thousand suns.

[JPhillips]

With the new spending, the 2019 deficit is projected at 5.6% of GDP.

In a booming economy.

Madness.