Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Trump for President      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 SaharaM
Joined: 4/9/2009
Msg: 76
view profile
History
Trump for PresidentPage 4 of 326    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
^^You're effectively suggesting that spending tax dollars is "wealth distribution." That doesn't make sense, except if one is advocating for abolishment of taxes.
 CheshireCatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 77
view profile
History
Trump for President
Posted: 4/18/2011 8:36:24 AM
^^ If greater than 60% of taxes are being channeled to low-income or special needs groups, how specifically is that NOT a characteristic of wealth distribution? Are widows and orphans etc. not more likely to be recipients of these transfers?

I'm not making any claims for a standard rate, lowered rate , or flat tax, or the elimination of taxes. I don't see how abolishment of taxes is a sequitur for the calculated breakdown I've posted.
 sum1reel
Joined: 6/5/2005
Msg: 78
Trump for President
Posted: 4/18/2011 10:28:01 AM

That is your unilateral opinion; not a universal fact; for I, and no doubt others, think he is waaay better than Obama.


it might be my opinion, but at least its based upon historical facts regarding trump's demeanor......and not just on my own 'feelings' on what i think he could do!


True. Why Romney, a seasoned politician would be a good choice...


...and by the same token, it is exactly why Trump would NOT be a good choice...Romny is a 'company man' his strings will be pulled by the RNC...whereas younger guys owe no favors to them..........i agree that Obama has had no prior experience; but at least he's showing that he can work with the opposition to get some things done.......Obama couldn't get things done with his own party members because his ideas were too way-out for them to get on board, and they were beholden to all their lobbyists who were throwing money at them to keep things the way they were........which amounted to no more than political cowardice on their part, and it was their ambivalence which showed through during election time, and many lost out!


I think Donald is smart enough to surround himself with brilliant political minds,


and where have these so-called "brilliant political minds" been hiding all this time, that only Trump can summon them forth?......i guess if Romny ever wins the presidency, you better hope he can ask Trump if he can get the names of these "brilliant minds" to work for him!
 4rumninja
Joined: 11/30/2009
Msg: 79
Trump for President
Posted: 4/18/2011 10:38:43 AM

and where have these so-called "brilliant political minds" been hiding all this time,
Great question, wasn't that what people said to defend Obamas lack of real world experience that he would surround himself with Brilliant people? We see how that is Not working out...
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 80
view profile
History
Trump for President
Posted: 4/18/2011 12:08:28 PM
"If greater than 60% of taxes are being channeled to low-income or special needs groups, how specifically is that NOT a characteristic of wealth distribution? Are widows and orphans etc. not more likely to be recipients of these transfers?"

Your deduction would ONLY be correct, if the money were taken from one group, and then handed as a lump some to the other. THAT would be "redistribution of wealth."
What you have described is NOT. It is, rather, based on the recognition that part of what a person gains from a social/governed society DOES have a real cost, and that they have a genuine responsibility to PAY for that.
You want to be free of dealing with hoards of indigent, handicapped, injured, or otherwise incapacitated people? You must pay for that. You want safety from molestation? You must pay for that as well, and part of avoiding THAT, is to see to it that people who MIGHT become desperate enough to turn to crime, might have alternatives. Of course, you might choose instead, to demand that everyone either care for themselves, or be jailed if they DO become so desperate, but THAT has an even higher cost.
You seem to have been fooled into believing similarly to those who think that "maintenance contracts are a sham to steal extra money from buyers of products."
The LABELS placed on services a government performs can, and periodically do, lead to people failing to correctly identify what they are actually about. I remember we used to have a congressman who every few months or so, would ostentatiously hand out a "Golden Fleece" award, to spotlight some act of Government waste of Taxpayers money. He found a fair number of genuine scams and mistaken plans, but he also INCORRECTLY managed to sabotage genuinely useful projects, simply because they had less than idea titles. A number of safety test systems were delayed, and lives and property lost, because he had them 'killed,' simply because the name of the project SOUNDED silly.
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 81
Trump for President
Posted: 4/18/2011 1:06:25 PM

Agree; but he is still better than Obama. My ideal candidate would be Mitt Romney, successful in business and politics...

See now Trump would disagree with you there and using Worthington's Law Trump would be the best man for the job.

Donald Trump says he’s much richer than Mitt Romney

..."I'm a much bigger businessman and have a much, much bigger net worth. I mean, my net worth is many, many, many times Mitt Romney," Trump said. He later added: "I built a very big net worth and I'd like to put that ability … to work for this country. So I don't do it for myself. I'd be doing it for this country....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/donald-trump-says-hes-much-richer-than-mitt-romney






Additionally he has more ethical fiber than Trump or Obama.

...and how does one measure someones Ethical Fiber?

Is it based on how many wives he has had or how many he has dumped for a younger better looking ones?

Or how many wives their invisible sky wizard tells them they can have?

Is it based at all on what they have actually done as apposed to what they say they stand for?



I think Romney would beat Trump hands down, the only problem he may have other than the mormon thing (not a huge problem as now that there is Scientology, they are only considered the second craziest people) is how does he explain why is is against Obama's health care plan when the one in his home state is basically the same deal.
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 82
view profile
History
Trump for President
Posted: 4/18/2011 8:00:59 PM
Well he could use that old marching song as a theme: We Shall Overcomb. . . .

 CheshireCatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 83
view profile
History
Trump for President
Posted: 4/18/2011 8:49:40 PM
@igorfrankensteen


Your deduction would ONLY be correct, if the money were taken from one group, and then handed as a lump some to the other. THAT would be "redistribution of wealth." What you have described is NOT. It is, rather, based on the recognition that part of what a person gains from a social/governed society DOES have a real cost, and that they have a genuine responsibility to PAY for that.


Are you claiming that because the government taxes you via your employer, who submits you taxes to the appropriate branch of government, who then funnels it through Program X or Program Y, and then channels it to Medicaid, or Program Z, that it is NOT a wealth re-distribution? What would be “wealth distribution” – a straight barter system?

Here’s a definition straight out of the Economics book in my library – Economics – first Canadian Edition – Bloomqvist and Wonnacott (page 771, in case anyone actually has the same edition and wants to look it up).

When all programs are considered, the overall picture is one of a government that is redistributing income substantially from the rich to the poor, in the process eliminating roughly one fourth of the income inequality. …..Income taxes are progressive, taking a larger proportion of income from the rich than the poor.

If we examine the Canadian income distribution before government taxes and transfers are taken into account, we observe a great inequality. The poorest 20 percent of families receive only about 3.5 percent of the total income, while the highest 20 percent get almost half. A substantial portion of this inequality is eliminated by government transfer expenditures that are concentrated heavily on the poor, and by progressive taxes that draw heavily from the rich. The most effective government expenditure in equalizing income is social insurance, old-age security, workmen’s compensation and unemployment insurance. But other government expenditures, both in cash and in kind, also play a role.

Similar definitions can be found in the internet. Redistributing wealth is merely changing the division of the national pie.


You want to be free of dealing with hoards of indigent, handicapped, injured, or otherwise incapacitated people? You must pay for that. You want safety from molestation? You must pay for that as well, and part of avoiding THAT, is to see to it that people who MIGHT become desperate enough to turn to crime, might have alternatives. Of course, you might choose instead, to demand that everyone either care for themselves, or be jailed if they DO become so desperate, but THAT has an even higher cost.


I’ve read this over 4-5 times, and I still have NO idea where this is going……Why are you spinning this as someone’s desire to be “free of hoards of indigent….people?” Safety from molestation? It seems as if you’re running off on some sort of borderline eugenics-based theme here Igor.


You seem to have been fooled into believing similarly to those who think that “maintenance contracts are a sham to steal extra money from buyers of products. “


Again – what? Maintenance contracts are a sham? I’m not even sure what a maintenance contract is, to be honest, or how it relates to redistributing wealth? And why is “maintenance contracts…..” in quotes?


The LABELS placed on services a government performs can, and periodically do, lead to people failing to correctly identify what they are actually about. I remember we used to have a congressman who every few months or so, would ostentatiously hand out a "Golden Fleece" award, to spotlight some act of Government waste of Taxpayers money. He found a fair number of genuine scams and mistaken plans, but he also INCORRECTLY managed to sabotage genuinely useful projects, simply because they had less than idea titles. A number of safety test systems were delayed, and lives and property lost, because he had them 'killed,' simply because the name of the project SOUNDED silly.


Again, I’ve read this several times, and I’m no closer to getting your drift. By providing that link to give a representation of taxes and social programs, I’m hardly making any judgments as to how they are labelled, to what degree they are beneficial, whether the percentages depicted in the website “pie” are right, wrong, too much, too little, ineffectual, or wrongly described, etc. What does the recounting of your congressman story have to do with the fact that the government does indeed redistribute wealth (as confirmed by my Economics textbook)?
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 84
view profile
History
Trump for President
Posted: 4/19/2011 9:31:54 AM

16% - Social Security
10% - Net Interest
1% - Natural Resources and Environment
17% - National Defense
16% - Medicare
2% - International Affairs
16% - Income Security (unemployment, civil services retirement, military retirement, tenant rental assistance, assistance for needy families)
8% - Health (grant to states for Medicaid, children's health insurance fund)
3% - Veterans Benefits
3% - Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
1% - Administration of Justice


Language is tricky. So is accounting. In this chart, it is implied that Social Security and Medicare come out of income taxes. They do not. Retirement and healthcare for military/vets is plunked into "Income Security" rather than into "National Defense." Payments on interest is likely mostly payment for past *war* debts. *These* things DO come out of income taxes, which even people below poverty level pay. Since war is a BIG industry, owned and run by those who are wealthy, then the income redistribution would be from the poor, who DO pay taxes to the wealthy (GE, for instance *does NOT pay taxes*).

Jefferson at least among the founding fathers posited that an educated citizenry was vital to a democracy. Check out who's paying from their own pockets for school vouchers (which is widely acknowledged to be a methodology for wrecking public schools), providing a half thinking easily manipulable public and endless supply of Wal-Mart Associates.

As for Chip -- Wal-Mart employees are the largest users of the program in virtually every state where they operate -- so again, the public is being taxed to provide benefits for a corporation, which then, in turn, pays minimal taxes.

I spent five years of my life working the words for accountants (Papa Bear firm [Big 8 firm], Mama Bear firm, and Baby Bear firm). Our clients, on the whole paid less in taxes -- regardless of the *public* rates, than the editorial and typing staff -- both rate wise and in actual dollars. My last job, we had a cardiologist who made $3,000,000 one year, and paid less than I did, and I was making $24,000.

Counter intuitive as it is, given the rhetoric of the past forty years, the poor support the rich, not vice versa. It's trickle up, not trickle down. . . .

THIS is illuminating (for those who wish to actually *see*):


HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED

Current military” includes Dept. of Defense ($653 billion), the military portion from other departments ($150 billion), and an additional $162 billion to supplement the Budget’s misleading and vast underestimate of only $38 billion for the “war on terror.” “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*

The Government Deception

The pie chart below is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large chart (top).
the government's deceptive pie chart

Source: Congressional Budget Office for FY2008

These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the “Analytical Perspectives” book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 15, 2008, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page.
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

 4rumninja
Joined: 11/30/2009
Msg: 85
Trump for President
Posted: 4/19/2011 10:11:27 AM

GE, for instance *does NOT pay taxes
And? They have over 300,000 employees who are able to pay taxes because of their employment at GE...


Wal-Mart employees are the largest users of the program in virtually every state where they operate
And? All of the people in question have jobs thanks to Wal-Mart...if they didn't have those jobs imagine how much more they would take in assistance...


My last job, we had a cardiologist who made $3,000,000 one year, and paid less than I did
I doubt that..they may have paid a lower percentage but I am sure they PAID much more in Dollars...
 CheshireCatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 86
view profile
History
Trump for President
Posted: 4/19/2011 10:21:24 AM
@wooby

Good article, thanks for posting. I'm going to have a read over the website later when I get a chance. I agree that semantics are huge, particularly with interest payments. However, it doesn't change the redistribution aspect, creating accounting not withstanding.


we had a cardiologist who made $3,000,000 one year, and paid less than I did, and I was making $24,000.


This surprised me. Was he incorporated? If he had that income level, he probably did not get most of his income from a hospital salary. My father was an oral/maxillofacial surgeon, and while he made good money, he didn't make $3,000,000. But he still paid a high marginal tax rate, and I know this because many years ago when I was in school I remitted his federal and provincial tax withholdings, did payroll, and filed his income tax for him (maybe should have used a professional accountant?). He also wrote off a lot of office expenses including his office rent, staff, paying an anaesthesiologist, dental lab expenses, mailings, phone, equipment leases, etc.

At the end of the day, he still paid more income taxes in those years than I do now, but his expenses did significantly reduce his marginal tax rate. If he had had the same income in a different profession, he likely would have paid more in taxes than he did. I also know people at the "poor" end of the spectrum, and while they pay taxes, they pay very little at source or they get a large refund at tax time.
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 87
view profile
History
Trump for President
Posted: 4/19/2011 11:11:22 AM
4rum ~~ Nope. I paid a higher percentage AND more $. And he was really quirky (had his wife as a dependent, which cost him bucks)(if they filed jointly, she'd have to sign the return, and he was afraid if she found out how much he made, she would divorce him and ask for half -- as a dependent, she didn't have to see the return. . . .). A really good accountant is worth his weight in tax shelters. . . .



8 Reasons We Should Fight to Keep Walmart Out of Our Major Cities ...
Jan 15, 2011 ... Walmart displaces better-paying retail jobs. According to a 2005 study, when Walmart enters a metropolitan area it kills similar retail jobs that pay 18% more. ... One report found that if Walmart could bump its minimum wage up to ... an incredible 587 times more than his average full-time employee. ...

news.change.org/.../8-reasons-we-should-fight-to-keep-walmart-out-of-our-major-cities -

Wal-Mart is a BUSINESS which has NO business making the taxpayer pay for its benefits to its own employees. Sorry.

Same for GE. It makes money off of the education and talents of its workers. That does NOT relieve them of the DUTY to pay taxes.



CC ~~ he was a Schedule C -- sole proprietor. And yep, as I said above, he *should* have used a *really good* accountant (whose fees are also tax deductible, lol! And more than worth it).

When I was a craftsperson/dollmaker, I was startled at what poor records the other crafters kept. They were losing, as nearly as I could tell, about a third of their income to taxes because they "didn't want to be bothered" with keeping mileage -- to shows, when buying supplies, when delivering things -- and other deductible stuff.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 88
Trump for President
Posted: 4/19/2011 1:14:48 PM

They have over 300,000 employees who are able to pay taxes because of their employment at GE...


Great post #88

WTF...now I can google like the rest of em...and GE does have 300000 employees worldwide ...is it your contention that the non-US employees are paying US taxes???

Let me correct that little piece of dis-information for ya:


In the document "Notice of 2010 Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement" (http://www.ge.com/pdf/investors/financial_reporting/proxy_statements/ge_proxy_2010.pdf) having a cover letter dated March 9, 2010, on page 48 in response to the "Shareholder Proposal No. 4--Pay Disparity" the company states "We currently employ about 133,000 people in the United States in businesses as diverse as media and entertainment, commercial and consumer finance, transportation, aviation, power generation and consumer products. "

Notice that the figure of about 133,000 domestic (U.S.) employees is less than one-half of the company's approximately 304,000 total (worldwide) employees at end of year 2009 (http://www.hoovers.com/company/General_Electric_Company/rfjyci-1.html).



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Domestic_Employees_General_Electric#ixzz1K0HJWNIF


And how much corporate tax did GE pay this past year???

the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

NT Times 3/24/2011
 Coma White
Joined: 4/11/2004
Msg: 89
Trump for President
Posted: 4/19/2011 11:22:23 PM
I don't really know enough about Trump to comment, but I think Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura would be a great president and vice president. It's not like anyone can do worse than Obama. Well, actually Sarah Palin probably could since she hasn't heard of any American newspapers and she's a quitter. Either way, it doesn't really matter who American's vote for. The federal reserve runs the country.
 CheshireCatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 90
view profile
History
Trump for President
Posted: 4/19/2011 11:48:50 PM
While Trump continues to wave his birther flag, he is also apparently considering the idea of releasing his tax returns if Obama releases his birth certificate. I'm sure Trump will never release such info because a birther will never acknowledge any proof that a birth certificate exists, no matter what paperwork is submitted.

He also faltered on the abortion right-to-privacy question put to him by a reporter, which begs the question, how literate is he in discussing the Constitution? Should this be a requirement of a political candidate?

Cited here:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/19/6495853-the-donald-trumped-on-abortion-question


Vaughn Ververs writes:In his lengthy interview with NBC’s Savannah Guthrie, Donald Trump appeared stumped when asked about the legal principle that served as the cornerstone for the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. Here’s the key part of the interview:

Guthrie: “Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution?”

Trump: “I guess there is, I guess there is. And why, just out of curiosity, why do you ask that question?”

When pressed to explain how his position on the right to privacy “squares” with his anti-abortion position, Trump responded: “Well, that’s a pretty strange way of getting to pro-life. I mean, it’s a very unique way of asking about pro-life. What does that have to do with privacy? How are you equating pro-life with privacy? ”

Guthrie asked, “well, you know about the Roe v. Wade decision.” Trump responded, “yes, right, sure. Look, I am pro-life. I’ve said it. I’m very strong there.”

The exchange was reminiscent of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s response to a similar question during the 2008 presidential campaign. In one of a series of interviews with CBS News’ Katie Couric that were widely seen as damaging to Palin’s image, the vice presidential nominee was asked: “Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?” Palin responded, “I do. Yeah, I do.”

Given that the Supreme Court used the “right to privacy” reasoning as the foundation for the Roe ruling, anti-abortion activists and candidates have long insisted no such right exists.
 SaharaM
Joined: 4/9/2009
Msg: 91
view profile
History
Trump for President
Posted: 4/20/2011 4:45:47 AM

While Trump continues to wave his birther flag, he is also apparently considering the idea of releasing his tax returns if Obama releases his birth certificate.
Quite an arrogant perspective to think that this even makes sense (or would have any impact on Obama at all.) Classic Trump.
 VacationGuy234
Joined: 8/1/2008
Msg: 92
Trump for President
Posted: 4/20/2011 5:25:13 AM
No, I won't vote for Trump because politics is really not business. It's about the human condition and solving it's problems. You can't put monetary cost on mostly emotional issues and this is what the framers of the U.S. constitution understood. You need to be able to compromise and make decisions that, while not perfect, do the least amount of harm.

No president is going to make the right decisions all the time, not gonna happen. Personally, I didn't like G W Bush, but I felt he was right in his approach to illegal immigration by confronting the problem instead of trying to sweep it under the rug. Romney helped create a health care law that is unconstitutional and can't be compared to car insurance because you don't get penalized if you don't have a car(you can't opt out). Healthcare needs to be tax funded just like Europe because it is the only way to do it if you want equal healthcare with a U.S. distribution of wealth.

I think Obama is doing a good job considering what he has inherited, nobody is going to get us out of the mess we are in easily. If we could get our debt to a reasonable level and recreate a smaller but stable manufacturing base to diversify our trade more we would be in good shape.
 4rumninja
Joined: 11/30/2009
Msg: 93
Trump for President
Posted: 4/20/2011 10:07:24 AM

I think Obama is doing a good job considering what he has inherited,
Obama didn't inherit anything..he asked for the Job...saying he inherited a bad situation is just an out for his supporters since nothing that he has implemented has had a positive effect on the Economy.He has had over two years to resolve some of the problems..none of his economic plans has worked....his foreign policy is 2 wars plus 1 of his own now...
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 94
Trump for President
Posted: 4/20/2011 10:23:15 AM
Obama didn't inherit anything..he asked for the Job...saying he inherited a bad situation is just an out for his supporters since nothing that he has implemented has had a positive effect on the Economy...

Well if he did not inherit a screwed up economy then there is nothing to fix then is there, so your point is moot.

Although key economic indicators like job growth and strength of the markets may have a different view considering the growth of both of them since he has taken office.


Though I am sure that short of everyone driving Ferraris and taking away the rights of anyone who is not a heterosexual white person he would still be seen as a failure by many.



Trump is just trolling and America is buying it, he will never run.



Pro-Lifers: Donald Trump Doesn't Understand How Pro-Life Works
Evan McMorris-Santoro | April 19, 2011, 4:45PM

Donald Trump is 100% pro-life. Except when it comes to the basis of Roe v. Wade which made abortion legal in the United States. That he agrees with, 100%...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/pro-lifers-donald-trump-doesnt-understand-how-pro-life-works-video.php?ref=fpa





Is Trump playing us for suckers?
By Christopher Byron, Special to CNN
April 19, 2011 9:40 a.m. EDT


(CNN) -- The disappointing thing about most phonies is that they don't have staying power. Once they get caught, they give it up and skulk off into the night, never to be heard from again. Think of Rosie Ruiz, say, who pretended to win the Boston Marathon by sneaking out of a crowd of bystanders ahead of everybody in the last half-mile of the race.

That's why I like Donald Trump so much. When it comes to pretending to run marathons, he never quits.

For more than 20 years he's been periodically popping out of the bushes to declare that he "might" be running for president of the United States, or that he's "considering" it, or even considering it "very seriously," or (his ultimate statement of intent) really thinking about it "more seriously than ever before."...

...In 1987 Trump published a self-celebration entitled "Trump, The Art Of The Deal," and when he hired Republican dirty trickster Roger Stone Jr. to begin floating his name as a possible 1988 presidential contender, the book surged instantly to the top of the best-seller lists.

Thirteen years later, he spotted an opportunity for himself to claim to be interested in running for president on the so-called Reform Party ticket -- a short-lived venture launched and then abandoned by Texas business biggie, H. Ross Perot. Why? As he put it to an editor at George, "It's a great way to raise the rents."...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/19/byron.trump.president/index.html
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 95
Trump for President
Posted: 4/20/2011 11:17:42 AM

Obama didn't inherit anything..he asked for the Job...saying he inherited a bad situation is just an out for his supporters since nothing that he has implemented has had a positive effect on the Economy.He has had over two years to resolve some of the problems..none of his economic plans has worked....his foreign policy is 2 wars plus 1 of his own now...


Mindboggling….Obama may have had at least one positive influence on the economy...the bailout of the auto industry saved the one of the last bastion of major manufacturing in the US (outside of military manufacturing)…and saved the 5 million jobs associated with the auto industry…

He did inherit 2 wars that were grossly miss-managed by the Bush administration….and Bush started the Iraq war without NATO backing…now I know there are some media outlets that would say that Libya is a US war…yet, it is an action that is NATO led and there are no ground troops there…there has been no shock and awe display of the US military might….and no Commander In Chief has gone on an aircraft carrier and declared victory.

On foreign policy Trump said in an interview with Bill O’Rielly:
Trump also warned that abandoning Iraq in the near future would result in Iran taking control of the oil fields.

"If Iran is gonna take over the oil, we stay and we keep the oil," Trump said. "A country goes in, they conquer and they stay. We go in, we conquer and then we leave and we hand it to people that we don't even know."

Later Trump said to O’Rielly:

“He's in Iraq. Nobody respects us”

Geeze I wish the Donald would make up his mind…

On China and OPEC:
Trump declared China and OPEC were "decimating" the U.S economy and proposed placing a 25 percent tax on Chinese goods if the country manipulates their currency. He also said the United States needs to get much tougher with OPEC.
"It sounds good to be a tough guy," fellow conservative O'Reilly said. "… But the blowback from China and OPEC could really, really harm the country."

 VacationGuy234
Joined: 8/1/2008
Msg: 96
Trump for President
Posted: 4/20/2011 12:39:40 PM
You cannot possibly believe that the greatest recession since The Great Depression was not a product of the Bush Admin being asleep at the wheel? Recessions happen because they are part of the economy, but Great Depressions are avoidable.

Making homes more affordable does not mean predatory lending. Nobody ever said the gate shouldn't be watched.

And yes, he has had a positive affect on the economy because it would be much worst.
 Coma White
Joined: 4/11/2004
Msg: 97
Trump for President
Posted: 4/20/2011 12:52:15 PM
I think Obama is one of the worst presidents to ever be elected. He promised not to hire lobbyists, but that's all he did. He got a nobel peace prize and bombed Pakistan. He said he would close Guantanamo Bay and then didn't do it. I'm guessing the reason for that is because if they tried people in the US, they would have to show the evidence against the so called terrorists in a public setting. The US foreign policy never changes no matter who is in power. (Thanks Aipac)
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 98
Trump for President
Posted: 4/21/2011 5:34:13 AM
Coma, ummmm you dont live in the USA so how could you know he's the worst president to be elected ever? All politicians promise things and all politicians break their promises, show me one president that hasnt, except for Abe Lincoln the man.
 Whatisnewwithyou
Joined: 1/25/2011
Msg: 99
Trump for President
Posted: 4/21/2011 5:48:32 AM
"Coma, ummmm you dont live in the USA so how could you know he's the worst president to be elected ever? All politicians promise things and all politicians break their promises, show me one president that hasnt, except for Abe Lincoln the man."

^^Politicians are all the same regardless if they are on the right or the left. All you have to do is ask yourself if you are better off, right now than you were when the last one was in office. If you are, then congrats, if you are not, then vote the for the other one next time.
 SaharaM
Joined: 4/9/2009
Msg: 100
view profile
History
Trump for President
Posted: 4/21/2011 7:08:13 AM

Coma, ummmm you dont live in the USA so how could you know he's the worst president to be elected ever?


First of all, that's not what Coma said. Second, believe it or not, you're no more privy to information than Coma or anyone else outside of these borders. Your opinion is no more relevant than Coma's.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Trump for President