Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    747
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheeeit

  1. Shit. Your faith did not last 3 weeks. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot_oct10
  2. No doubt. Now that this is over and no one was seriously hurt, I find it pretty funny when presented with the whole story. I think the new definition should be do not hit women unless they are dressed to conceal they are a woman, swinging a bottle at your buddies head and then, after being punched once, they get up and come back at you in the middle of a riot. The odds of these circumstances happening again seem slim so maybe we can go back to just do not hit women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWMYmZMiQLk Funny all around in hindsight. Forgot to add her post before the event that she was coming to get 100 scalps. Yes I get the movie reference. Its just too funny. Watching fights on TV and imagining how it is going to be is different from real life.
  3. I am done with this. Did you even read the articles? Carrier is hiring. They cant get quality employees to fill the demand. How the fuck is that an indictment on the economy or on US manufacturing? Ford is in the middle of restructuring that was announced years ago. Just stop.
  4. Facts don't matter. Dear Leader out front shoulda toldja. JFC you guys are a beating. Fondren posts that the rust belt has not had any economic growth and, as a result, the dems can easily get their support if they just show up there to campaign. I post long time economic forecasting services that show that 4 of the 5 rust belt states have consumer confidence and business economic optimism at all time highs. Not simply the big cities. The entire states. The unemployment numbers for these states are at 40 year lows. Wage growth in these states has been higher than anytime in the last 20 years. https://www.eauclairechamber.org/eau-claire-chamber-blog/regional-employer-survey-shows-local-wage-growth-accelerating Those are for Indiana (Fondren) and Wisconsin. Anyone can look this stuff up. Read the actual data. In these states around 50% of the job growth and wage growth are in manufacturing of durable goods. The exact types of jobs that dems told them were never coming back. They are coming back. Jimmy keeps posting stuff about Carrier and I have no idea why. Carriers plant in Indianapolis that made all the headlines is openly hiring. They cant find enough people to keep up with demand. Their biggest issue right now is keeping the line open to reach their quotas. Starting pay over $18/hour and up to $20 within 6 months plus as much OT as they want. For the country, durable manufacturing jobs actually decreased from jan '15 to jan '17 by 47,000 jobs. And most of the losses were in 2016. Since jan '17 to jul '18 (6 full months less time) there have been 311,000 durable goods manufacturing jobs created with the bulk coming in 2018. By any measure, this is fantastic for the country. It is just so typical for this place and the usual suspects that someone could post something so stupid- that dems could easily get back the rust belt states because they have not had any economic gains and are "eating shit" when the reports from those states have economic confidence at all time highs- and not only do people not criticize the post they seem to be trying to defend it.
  5. Gee lets call someone slugger to try and trivialize them so people wont realize how dumb of a post I made. People can judge for themselves I suppose. We have Fondren's word based on........versus the actual data from the agencies that have been tracking economic optimism for the state for decades under both parties. It is ok to admit you made a mistake.
  6. I wont reply again because it just isnt worth it but this latest post is perfect for you. I make a post that includes a point that republicans were stalling Obama candidates. You make a reply to tell me that the mean republicans obstruct nominees more than the dems. I reply that that may very well be true but it was not anything at all that I was arguing in my post and that it is irrelevant to the points I was making. You reply "look into the numbers you fucking imbecile". That is fantastic.
  7. You get dumber every day. In a post where I point out how republicans specifically stalled Obama candidates you ask me about repubs stalling candidates. The point, you dolt, is that there are lots and lots of posts on this thread about how the dems did not obstruct Gorsuch. They fully intended to and said as much publicly. I have no problem with them using the rules in the senate as they exist. But they were going to filibuster Gorsuch and the repubs used the same tactic that Reid used to get around the filibuster rule. My post made zero points about which party obstructs the other more often or more forcefully. You just can not help yourself.
  8. This just is not true on any level. The economic optimism in the rust belt states is overwhelmingly high. https://www.moodyonthemarket.com/pnc-economic-outlook-pushes-michigan-business-optimism-to-record-high-levels/ https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2018/06/27/optimism-among-wmc-membership-remains-high-amid.html https://columbusregion.com/news-events/ohio-economic-outlook-optimism-time-high-pnc-employer-survey-columbus-business-first/ http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/story/37989005/report-ranks-indiana-high-for-economic-outlook That is every state in the "rust" belt except for Illinois and all of them have consumer confidence/business confidence or whatever you want to call it at all time highs. There biggest issue is a labor shortage which is the biggest driver for increased wages. But the exact type of jobs, manufacturing primarily, that these states were told were never coming back are, in fact, coming back. The blue collar worker in the rust belt is having a better time today than any in the last 20 years. It is also telling that Illinois is the only rust belt state that is still in uncertain mode.
  9. The "Biden" rule was not actually a rule or any piece of legislation. It was just his thoughts on the subject. However, it was the Dems under Harry Reid in 2013 that changed the rules of the senate that have us where we are now. Republicans, at the time, warned that the shoe would be on the other foot at some point and Reid, to his credit, admitted that the Republicans would and should be able to do the same thing if and when they came to a majority. The change was basically an end to the filibuster rule where 41 dissenting votes could tie up nominations indefinitely. There is no question the repubs were using the rule to slow down Obama nominations in 2013 but the dems, via Reid, had the majority and voted for the change to the rule. I actually think it is a good change. People keep forgetting about Gorsuch (side note: it is amazing how people can not even remember things from a year ago) and what the dems were doing. Everyone keeps saying that the dems did not try and sink Gorsuch which is patently false. The dems got 41 senators to oppose the nomination which set up a filibuster opportunity. They told McConnel they were going to filibuster. As a result, McConnel did the exact same as Reid in 2013 and changed Senate rules to avoid a filibuster. The shoe was on the other foot a lot sooner than Reid hoped. As for Garland, we can debate whether he should have been up for a vote or not forever and not agree. But, what is not debatable is that the repubs used the actual rules of the senate to their advantage. What they did was not new either and it had been done before. IMO, the dems and Obama should have formally nominated him and forced the repubs to a vote. They could have used that politically. They did not do it because they assumed Hillary would win. But the repubs used the laws as written to their advantage just like every party does when in the majority.
  10. https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/01/11/how-many-americans-paid-the-obamacare-tax-penalty-in-2016/ Solid effort. $3,000,000,000 in 2016 in penalties. But you were close.
  11. lol good point. i suppose subtle is a poor word choice but the scenes from say talledega when they are praying are 100x more funny to me than when he is running around the track thinking he is on fire.
  12. Shit. I was all in and laughed at the pics in the first post. Trailer was exactly what I did not want. Those guys are genius when subtle but terrible with slap stick. Actually all slap stick is pretty terrible.
  13. "Some" were. Bullshit. Any city/state that realistically thinks they have a chance to get the facilities will not even consider the scenario you described. It is completely nonsensical. Think about what you are saying. The only possible way that cities would worry about this is if they have 100% employment now and no workers in any industry that pay less than Amazon. No cities have that. As to the announcement, I think it is great for Amazon and their employees and a win for the economy. It is not a coincidence that you did not see this during periods of tepid gdp growth.
  14. sheeeit

    Trumps USMCA

    This is not so hard to understand. Currently there are little or no US based auto parts manufacturers and auto manufacturers that pay less than $16/hr for line workers. This will have little to no effect on wages in the US. However, there are many US based auto parts manufacturers and auto manufacturers that have, since NAFTA, made significant investment in plants in Mexico, especially glass components. Low wages in Mexico is certainly a factor in these US based companies moving operations to Mexico coupled with an extremely difficult ability for Mexican employees to collectively bargain. So when these US based businesses open their next plants, they will have a much higher incentive to keep them in the US. The wage differential will be closing, Mexican workers can now collectively bargain, the corporate tax rate in the US is now lower than Mexico, and the threshold for tariffs on the % of parts made in the US was increased. Further, and this is a biggie, the US now has the ability to investigate conditions in Mexico independent of Mexico- they do not get to police their own and, of course, they get to do the same to the US. Since NAFTA there has been in excess of $200B in infrastructure investment in Mexico from US auto related companies. Now no one thinks those current plants are going to be closed anytime soon because the costs are sunk but when it comes time for new investment or upgrades to existing facilities, the strong incentive will be for the US companies to do it within the US. This deal evens the playing field tremendously. The property taxes and jobs created from these investments will be massive over time. And everyone keeps ignoring the new regulations regarding intellectual property rights. This is a very big win for the film and music industry. Especially since, as mentioned earlier, the US can go after Mexican and Canadian firms or people accused of violating the agreements. This sets a precedent for new regulations relating to IP around the globe. It will be much harder for asian countries to say the regulations the US wants to impose are not fair when our 2 closets trading partners already agreed to them. There are also new regulations related to the pharm industry. The deal provides extra years in protection from copying US developed drugs in Canada and Mexico and actually lowers it in the US. This is a win for US pharma companies as well as US consumers as the generics can get into the US 2 years sooner now. Again, it levels the playing field and the US wins in all cases. I am not suggesting at all that this is some fantastical new deal that is a panacea for the US (I am quite certain that trump will say that) but it is undeniable that there are very real benefits in the billions of dollars to the US economy and Americans. That is good and it should be acknowledged.
  15. sheeeit

    Trumps USMCA

    I get what you are saying. You do not like the subsidies provided to dairy farmers. In some ways I completely agree, although it is a complex issue. Where you lose me is how this is a bad deal for Americans. I do not really care if Canadians get less expensive dairy due to increased competition. Bully for them. It affects the US consumer exactly zero. But the point you keep ignoring is that the current subsidies provided to dairy farmers does not go up a single dollar as a result of this deal. In fact, it will go down as a portion of the subsidies involved are for excess supply which will now be purchased by Canadians which means less subsidy dollars from the US. So, again, how is this deal bad for the US? It costs the US tax payer either zero or fewer dollars than they are currently paying in subsidies. It increase employment and profits to US dairy farmers which increases the tax base. If this deal somehow made existing subsidies go up then you would have a point but it does not. With the new deal, now is probably a great time to look at the current govt programs that dairy farmers take advantage of.
  16. sheeeit

    Trumps USMCA

    Not sure of your point. The new deal had absolutely no impact on the few current govt programs for the dairy industry. People routinely misunderstand subsidies, but this deal made no changes to any existing programs. But if US farmers can sell more product abroad, how is that, in any way, a downside to the US? In fact, a number of the "subsidies" you speak of have to do with over supply domestically. This will go down as more product is sold abroad. Also, I am sure you know that US dairy farmers do not get to set the price for milk in Canada. Why should I care what Canadians pay for milk as long as more revenue from Canadians flow to US businesses. We can debate the few govt programs available to dairy farmers and I would probably agree that they could be abused in some cases. However, this trade deal has no impact on them so using them as a criticism of the deal seems misplaced.
  17. sheeeit

    Trumps USMCA

    It is really difficult to determine how successful a deal like this is until years down the road. There are unintended consequences in any deal of this magnitude. There will be "experts" on both sides that will have very different interpretations of the fine points. People should take any comments from people not affiliated with the actual industries involved that are for or against the deal with a grain of salt. On the dairy, it is telling the American Dairy Assoc came out in strong support of the deal and the Canadian Dairy Assoc came out in strong opposition to the deal. The US got much better terms than those negotiated with Canada as part of the TPP. The American Auto Assoc came out strongly in favor of the deal. The newer more stringent IP regulations are an absolute win for the US and, likely more important, set a precedent for IP regulations with China and others. I fully expect the dems to downplay the deal and I fully expect Trump to grossly exaggerate the deal. But, imo, I think it is a much better deal for the US going forward but time will tell.
  18. I have zero problem with Soros doing whatever he wants with his money. I think it is silly to say he has less influence than the Kochs as he spends far more money on politics than they do, especially globally. But, again, nothing wrong with that. He plays by the rules of the game so he can do as he pleases. Soros really could be a topic of his own and is and will be a fascinating figure to study, especially his somewhat unique style of trading/betting. One of the most ironic aspects of Soros is that he is pretty universally loved/revered by democrats because he funds their interests lavishly, but the way he made the majority of his fortune represents just about everything most democrats say they despise. He did nothing illegal, that I know of, and I have always argued that morality/ethics is way down the list of things to be concerned about in finance, but Soros used his money and influence to take massive positions against foreign currencies that ultimately paid him and his investors billions but literally drove millions of ordinary people to financial ruin in those countries. Sorry to thread jack but Soros is a fascinating guy.
  19. I am for these guys earning as much as they can. I think police deserve more as the jobs are different. Based on this site (no idea if accurate), base salary for fire fighters in Houston is essentially the same as Austin and Dallas. https://www1.salary.com/TX/Fire-Fighter-Salary.html Almost every firefighter I ever knew (almost all good guys/gals) had a second gig doing something mechanical related- sprinkler systems, light furniture manufacturing, yard work etc. Stuff that could be done in garages and similar and that there was not a deadline for getting something done. None of the cops I have known have second gigs as the schedule does not allow it. On average firefighters have 20 days off per month but technically work more hours than 8-5ers because the hours are in 24 hour blocks. On average, firefighters work 240 hours per month versus 184 for others. There is also an almost unlimited ability for OT. If they got promised a pension in exchange for salary and that changed then they deserve to have the difference made up. There are approximately 4000 firefighters in Houston with an average salary of about $46K. A 32% raise would cost the city about $56,000,000.
  20. I love the rosenstein stuff. Anonymous sources claim rosenstein summoned to wh to be fired by trump! Predictable response here, like teen girls at a justin beiber concert. Speculation runs rampant. Oh wait, rosenstein was going to a regularly scheduled meeting and trump wasn't even in the WH. Why do you mopes keep falling for this stuff? Why do any of you believe any anonymous sourced story about trump? Can any of you at least admit, that in this particular case, every report based on anonymous sources was absolutely dead wrong. 99% of them are bogus. I do not even think the press is relying on sources they know are lying anymore. At this point I think they are just making them up.
  21. How? Feinstein sent the FBI a letter about an alleged sexual assault from 35 years ago and she REDACTED all of the names except for Kav and provided no specific date or location. As part of Kav's background check, virtually everyone he knows has already been questioned by the FBI. The vetting is intense and extremely comprehensive. Not one single person questioned by the FBI in their check even hinted at anything like what is being alleged. So what exactly did you want the FBI to do at that point?
  22. I don't know. I thought you were talking about a dem versus pub thing as that was what was predicted. Boxer was a very popular sitting congresswoman when she ran for the senate and the incumbent dem didnt even run for reelection. Murray won election when the incumbent also chose not to run and was under investigation for sexual misconduct and rape. I would say that had 100x more to do with Murray winning than Anita Hill. Feinstein was a very popular Mayor of San Fran and ran against a pretty weak opponent who was only acting as senator due to Wilson leaving and was never actually elected. I would agree that Braun was most certainly helped by the Anita Hill stuff. But I just do not think 1 senator getting help proves the hearings had much effect. A lot of it is still to be decided. As it stands right now, I fail to see how there are people out there saying they were going to vote for a republican for senator but will now vote for the dem because of the Kav hearings. Right now (obviously things will change if more info comes out) I think there are just as many people that support Kav and think he is being unfairly targeted (by both dems and repubs) as there are people that think he is guilty. I actually think there are probably more people that think this. This board is such a hyper partisan place that it makes people think certain views are more main stream than they really are. Without more evidence, I just do not think 35 year old accusations with no proof are going to move the needle for the majority of the country.
  23. Solid effort. Read Briskets post.
  24. sheeeit

    Tax reform

    Did you get an answer to this? Are you asking about the sale of private businesses? It happens everyday. There is massive investment in private businesses. The idea in most cases is to provide cash for the business in exchange for a % of the ownership. The business uses the cash to grow the business. If a dividend is paid, as stated, it is taxed accordingly. The hope is that the business grows and then is sold. Think of the Shark Tank guys. they have almost no interest in dividends. They put $100K in a business and get a 10% ownership stake which values the business at $1M. They business uses the $100K to expand and grow and then they hope to sell the business in a few years for $10M. The investor gets a gain of $900K on his $100K initial investment and pays capital gains on the $900K. Personally, I dislike all forms of capital gains taxes because the investments are made with post tax dollars. I see it as double taxation but I completely understand why it exists and realize that it is never going away. But in the scenario above, there is certainly no guarantee that the business that is invested in will actually survive and most do not get the growth they envision. And if you tax the gains from a potential sale at 40% then hardly anyone is going to invest. The performance of the business would have to be spectacular for the investor to justify the investment. But it is good for everyone to have that investment. The investor is likely already rich and needs incentive to fund the endeavors of people that are not rich. The owner still has 90% of the value and has a chance to get rich. The business will create jobs. Using investors is usually much preferred to taking on debt. Debt can be crushing if the business does not ramp up as quickly as hoped. Hope that helps.
  25. Not really. I had to look it up to remember but in the 1992 senate elections the dems actually were down a seat. And then they got smashed in 1994. Maybe I do not understand your point?
×
×
  • Create New...