Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[jarmo]

Should  the top 3 population centers of the US get to pick for everyone?

You mean, should the most amount of votes pick the president?

What a silly idea right?



/jarmo

[tim_m]

The way Obama handled Iran in my opinion was horrible. Was a lot more to getting out of that deal than out of spite.  A better deal (hopefully) can be made and you can be sure there will be no more cash payments made to Iran.

Ill grant you that the Orlando speech had too much Hillary references in it and in general a retread.  Trump needs to move on from that and the 'Make America Great Again' slogan.  Needs to run on what he has accomplished so far while offering an updated agenda for the next term that resonates. I know its early, but if he has a campaign manager in place at this point that person really needs to up their game.

Yes, Hillary did receive more of the popular vote, but Trump received more electoral votes than Hillary and that is what matters as that is the way we have elected Presidents since 1788. 

Yes, as a way to appease the slave states by treating empty land as equal to human voters. I suppose the three-fifths compromise was also acceptable because "it was the way we did it since 1788"?

And instead of improving the existing deal, it's better to back out and provoke war? It seems pretty clear the Trump admin is not interested in making a better deal.

The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. Was about not having New York and Massachusetts always getting to pick who wins a presidential election.  And that logic still is good today. Should  the top 3 population centers of the US get to pick for everyone?

It is Iran who isn't interested in making a more fair deal at this point.

The logic is flawed. You are looking at it incorrectly. You can't go by state population. You need to find out how many are registered among the population of those states, then figure out what percentage they are off the overall registered population. Not everyone can vote in these states, either they're indictments, legal resident but not yet citizens, underage or just not registered for wherever reason. New York, Texas and California only account for 26.7% of the overall registered population. There sure over 200 million registered and remember not everyone who is registered votes even in presidential election, so that percentage will vary. To win the popular vote you need slightly above 50%. I'd be willing to bet if you figured how what percentage are registered in the states with the most people, then figure out what percentage they are of the overall registered population, you would probably find 15-20 states would have vote for the same candidate to get to the bare minimum. Obviously no candidate is gonna be on odds like that and will have to go to more states to get a good majority of the people vote. They would have to go to more states then now. Right now they simple focus on the 18 setting states, but if they needed to break at least 50/50 in some states that they normally ignore that would be a good thing.

[pilferk]

You know they can't tell you because they can't come up with anything but the Republican talking points that are false.

Typically when I ask a Republican voter who says the "Iran deal was terrible" these questions I get silence and blank looks.  Because their response is, really, "Because Trump(and Fox News) says so". And they can't, obviously, just SAY that.

I've asked the good Senator these exact same questions, during an earlier discussion on the same topic, and got silence.

I don't expect any different this time. But maybe he'll surprise me.

Some reasons why it was terrible -

No constraints on developing ballistic missiles that they could inevitably use to launch any nuclear weapons that they could develop after 13 - 15 years into the deal. 

Issues with verification, inspectors would  have to wait up to 24 days for access to sites suspected of developing nukes.

Nothing in it regarding Iran funding terrorist organizations.

It's nice to see that, when pressed, you can use the Fox News search function.  Because these are a direct parroting of the irrelevant, and largely discredited, Fox News/Trump talking points.  They demonstrate that, whoever came up with them, didn't understand the deal, at all.  Not surprising, coming from Trump/Fox News.

To say a deal is "terrible" because it has certain provisions that expire (and long after Trump would be out of office....even if he got a second term...in the late 2020s) is ridiculous.  Those provisions expire specifically so the deal could be renegotiated down the road.  It worked both ways, incidentally. Our ability to cripple their economy with sanctions expired at the same time. Which is why their presence didn't make the deal terrible.

Verification at CERTAIN SITES (and they were sites that likely weren't conducive to enrichment) might take UP TO 24 days.  These include certain military installations, but also certain religious sites.  The truth is: Every time the inspectors made a request to visit a site (until we dropped out of the deal) that was not specifically designated in the agreement, they were granted access within 5 days, and in most cases within 72 hours.  The 24 day provision was agreed upon because enrichment residue can become undetectable in a minimum of 30 days (but no less, even with "clean up").  Inspections can take up to 6 days.  There's your math.

On TOP of that, inspectors had 24/7-365 access to every identified nuclear enrichment site (including reactors).  AND, if, in the course of inspections another site was identified, it was immediately (as part of the deal) added to the list of 24/7 365 sites. 

The fact is: The biggest foible in the agreement is that "suspicion" didn't grant immediate access to a site.  The inspectors had to present their suspicions to Iran, and request access.  They couldn't just show up. But the way the deal was structured, and given the timelines, the inspectors would have to have been granted access before any detectable enrichment remnants could be "cleaned up".  And detecting high levels of radiation equivalent to those generated during enrichment would have instantly added the site to the inspection list.

Again, provisions that actually make sense don't make a deal terrible.

In terms of funding terrorist activity, its irrelevant.  The Iran deal left in place our sanctions against Iran regarding their sponsoring of terrorism, and treated them entirely separately from their nuclear program.  And they have nothing to do with nuclear proliferation or a nuclear program, which is what the deal was regarding.  Including this provision would, actually, be counterproductive to the deal because, if Iran was found to be in violation (on either front), it would sink the entire deal.  When a deal is focused on a specific subject, including irrelevant provisions is a terrible way to make a deal. A deal isn't terrible because it doesn't address things that are outside the scope of the actual deal.  That's akin to negotiating the purchase of a home, along with a used car, at the used car lot.

As an aside, this administration has made a TON of deals with the Saudis.  You know, the actual country who funded 9-11.  And not ONE of them includes the provision you insist should be included in the Iran deal.  Not. One.  So, to be clear, you think every single deal this administration has made with the Saudis is a terrible one, right?  And thus, they should be held accountable for those terrible deals?

Back on topic: You seem to be equating "we didn't get everything we wanted, on every subject under the sun" with "it was a terrible deal".  I understand this confusion, since that's Trumps exact thinking "No deal is better than a deal that doesn't let me have my way, entirely". It's the petulant child approach to deal making and, so far, it hasn't worked out too well for him.

And, even assuming any one of your points deserved further consideration, NONE of them make the deal horrible.  They might mean further negotiation and tweaking is necessary.  But dropping the deal...one which all objective parties say Iran was in compliance with....for NO DEAL (and an unfettered Iran) is flat out stupid.  NO DEAL is the terrible deal.  And it's one that has led us to the brink of another foreign war (isn't that something you have a real issue with?).

Trumps brinksmanship has, so far, yielded NO appreciable upsides for the US.  Again, THOSE are terrible deals, and terrible deal making.

[pilferk]

The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. Was about not having New York and Massachusetts always getting to pick who wins a presidential election.  And that logic still is good today. Should  the top 3 population centers of the US get to pick for everyone?

It is Iran who isn't interested in making a more fair deal at this point.

It's "good logic" when you are cheering for the team that benefits from letting the minority elect a leader.

It's not "good logic" if you're talking about a democracy, from an objective point of view.  I mean, we aren't one (Democratic Republic), but maybe it's time....given we're not tallying election results on an abacus and delivering election results on horseback (or, rather, electors).

I mean...do you want every issue in your state decided by who owns the most land mass?  You get a number of votes equivalent to the acreage you own...and if you're not a landowner...pfft...you get one vote. That's it.  You are essentially suggesting that it's "good logic" to penalize voters for living where the majority of industry and opportunity exists and reward those who live in areas of vast, unpopulated, areas.  That's "good logic"? 

The concept of electing electors to then go vote in committee for the President seems a little wonky and archaic, no?

On top of that, if you can't convince the majority of voters to elect you to govern over them....maybe that says something about  you, as a candidate?

Like it or not, we are not really a "states rights" loose consortium of states using the federal government to regulate cross state trade and implement interstate infrastructure anymore.  The federal government has become a much larger, much more far reaching, and much more influential (in terms of day to day) entity than our forefathers wanted (or envisioned) it to be.

On the last bit: Would you want to negotiate with someone who renegged on a signed, sealed, and delivered deal that you were in compliance with?

Iran doesn't want to "make a deal" because they've been burned once, already, and don't trust this administration one bit.  I don't blame them, quite frankly. I don't, either.  We had a deal.

And that ENTIRELY proves the point of why Trump should not have dropped out.  It was a TERRIBLE negotiating tactic.  From a TERRIBLE deal maker.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

You know they can't tell you because they can't come up with anything but the Republican talking points that are false.

Typically when I ask a Republican voter who says the "Iran deal was terrible" these questions I get silence and blank looks.  Because their response is, really, "Because Trump(and Fox News) says so". And they can't, obviously, just SAY that.

I've asked the good Senator these exact same questions, during an earlier discussion on the same topic, and got silence.

I don't expect any different this time. But maybe he'll surprise me.

Some reasons why it was terrible -

No constraints on developing ballistic missiles that they could inevitably use to launch any nuclear weapons that they could develop after 13 - 15 years into the deal. 

Issues with verification, inspectors would  have to wait up to 24 days for access to sites suspected of developing nukes.

Nothing in it regarding Iran funding terrorist organizations.

It's nice to see that, when pressed, you can use the Fox News search function.  Because these are a direct parroting of the irrelevant, and largely discredited, Fox News/Trump talking points.  They demonstrate that, whoever came up with them, didn't understand the deal, at all.  Not surprising, coming from Trump.

 

The tired Fox news dig again? None of what I said came from Fox News.

Would obviously be a waste of my time to try to expand on my points & go deeper into this discussion so Ill just stop here. 

[pilferk]

The tired Fox news dig again? None of what I said came from Fox News.

Would obviously be a waste of my time to try to expand on my points & go deeper into this discussion so Ill just stop here. 

They are literally, almost verbatim, exactly the reasons Trump cited and were reported on, kindly, by Fox News.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-killing-deeply-flawed-iran-deal-is-the-right-move

and the 24 day thing has been a fox news trope since day one of the agreements signing:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/iran-world-powers-agree-to-nuclear-deal

[sandman]

So who else is happy that we didn't go to war with Iran the other day?

Time for Trump to fire Bolton. 

he's handling this in such an incredible way. agree on firing Bolton.

if ANYONE else were prez, we'd be at war. two and half years in, and he hasn't buckled to the pressure of the war hawks controlling the world. major fucking balls!

another "prediction" made by many libs that has yet to be proven true.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

The tired Fox news dig again? None of what I said came from Fox News.

Would obviously be a waste of my time to try to expand on my points & go deeper into this discussion so Ill just stop here. 

They are literally, almost verbatim, exactly the reasons Trump cited and were reported on, kindly, by Fox News.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-killing-deeply-flawed-iran-deal-is-the-right-move

and the 24 day thing has been a fox news trope since day one of the agreements signing:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/iran-world-powers-agree-to-nuclear-deal

Again, I did not get my opinion from Fox News.  It is obvious some on that network/ organization  have the same opinion, but Ill say it again, I did not reach my opinion by reading Fox News.

This back and forth is really pointless. And you wonder why I am not so quick to get into a debate with you. You always have to be right even when you are not.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

So who else is happy that we didn't go to war with Iran the other day?

Time for Trump to fire Bolton. 

he's handling this in such an incredible way. agree on firing Bolton.

if ANYONE else were prez, we'd be at war. two and half years in, and he hasn't buckled to the pressure of the war hawks controlling the world. major fucking balls!

another "prediction" made by many libs that has yet to be proven true.

Weren't we supposed to be in World War 3 by now?   

Trump made the right call. And he didn't allow himself to be swayed by the likes of bolton.
 

[pilferk]

Again, I did not get my opinion from Fox News.  It is obvious some on that network/ organization  have the same opinion, but Ill say it again, I did not reach my opinion by reading Fox News.

I believe you believe that.

I just don't actually believe it's true.  Not when it is the rote response (literally, those exact 3 things and usually in almost that exact same order) from every conservative who talks about the deal (when you can get them to...it's hard..more often silence and blank stares)...even after they've been "debunked".

It sure seems like they came from Fox News. Or, rather, if not Fox News directly....Fox News/conservative media outlets/Trump, indirectly. Once Trump and his propaganda arm release the talking points, they make the rounds pretty quickly. And they stick stubbornly amongst his supporters, no matter what.

You may not have used the Fox News search engine (a bit of hyperbole on my part, anyway).  But you pulled, almost verbatim, the talking points they (and Trump) perpetuate out of....wherever you pulled them from.  No? Don't you find that the least bit bothersome? Sort of like a nagging "oh shit, maybe I'm indoctrinated" voice in the back of your head?

No?

Interesting.

This back and forth is really pointless. And you wonder why I am not so quick to get into a debate with you. You always have to be right even when you are not.

I suggest, rather, that the reason you avoid these back and forths is that I tend to hold up the mirror to your bias, and your inconsistent opinions, and it makes you uncomfortable. Debate, in general, seems to make you uncomfortable unless you're "debating" with someone who believes exactly as you do.  I totally expect that you'll deny this, of course (you have before).  But...well... 

And, in this case, it's not about being right.  It's about making a point...which might be lost on you, but is (I think) pretty obvious.

[sandman]

So who else is happy that we didn't go to war with Iran the other day?

Time for Trump to fire Bolton. 

he's handling this in such an incredible way. agree on firing Bolton.

if ANYONE else were prez, we'd be at war. two and half years in, and he hasn't buckled to the pressure of the war hawks controlling the world. major fucking balls!

another "prediction" made by many libs that has yet to be proven true.

Weren't we supposed to be in World War 3 by now?   

Trump made the right call. And he didn't allow himself to be swayed by the likes of bolton.
 

all the libs were scared (their words, not mine). nuclear holocaust was coming!

and they've been predicting a economic meltdown for 2 years now!! because ya know, our economic experts in this thread are so seasoned in analyzing trends and they would NEVER just find whatever stat they need to fit their narrative. 

you just gotta laugh. 

but at least no one in here is harming themselves because of trump:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/florida-woman-stabs-herself-tired-donald-trump-100050004.html

[tim_m]

So who else is happy that we didn't go to war with Iran the other day?

Time for Trump to fire Bolton. 

he's handling this in such an incredible way. agree on firing Bolton.

if ANYONE else were prez, we'd be at war. two and half years in, and he hasn't buckled to the pressure of the war hawks controlling the world. major fucking balls!

another "prediction" made by many libs that has yet to be proven true.

Weren't we supposed to be in World War 3 by now?   

Trump made the right call. And he didn't allow himself to be swayed by the likes of bolton.
 

all the libs were scared (their words, not mine). nuclear holocaust was coming!

and they've been predicting a economic meltdown for 2 years now!! because ya know, our economic experts in this thread are so seasoned in analyzing trends and they would NEVER just find whatever stat they need to fit their narrative. 

you just gotta laugh. 

but at least no one in here is harming themselves because of trump:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/florida-woman-stabs-herself-tired-donald-trump-100050004.html

I wouldn't say we're out of the woods yet with way with Ian based on Trump's recent statements. As far as a recession it's gonna happen. It always does at some point and history shows it's every 10 years or so. We're at just over 10 now.

[pilferk]

I wouldn't say we're out of the woods yet with way with Ian based on Trump's recent statements. As far as a recession it's gonna happen. It always does at some point and history shows it's every 10 years or so. We're at just over 10 now.

Tim,

I agree with you about Iran.  We still have considerable work to do and the Iranian government has basically said they won't talk to this administration because they don't trust them.  We'll see if that holds up.  More fallout from pulling out of the deal Iran was complying with. 

It is funny to see conservatives, as the good Senator does, above, laud Trump for giving the order to bomb Iran before, at the last possible minute, pulling out.  ALMOST killing hundreds of innocent people is now something to be commended?  And giving him credit for NOT listening to the people HE appointed?  Um...no.  He appointed singularly unqualified candidates in so many positions...yet no mention of his terrible judgement? HOW many people have left, been fired, or proved categorically (HUD, Dept of Education) they can't do their jobs? Yikes.  Once again, instead of being able to criticize him for the failings that led to this point....they can only find praise for him. It's like praising the drunk driver, doing 90, with bad brakes for managing to swerve JUST in time to avoid crashing in to the bus full of people.  Just....mind boggling.

As an aside: Have you seen anyone in this thread actually predict economic collapse? I mean OTHER than conservatives who lie and attribute it to the indie/lib posters? I haven't, but...I figured I'd ask in case I missed something.

This seems like a particularly prevalent lie amongst the conservatives posting in this thread.  The good Senator and I went round and round about this PAGES ago!  Its such an obvious lie, I'm not sure why anyone would continue to perpetuate it? It is FAKE NEWS, and actual (not just intellectual) dishonesty.

I've seen lots of indie/lib posters say the economy is doing fine.  Not great. Not amazing.  With some indicators that things are slowing down a bit based on data and economists evaluations. That, despite conservatives insistence, not everything is unicorns and rainbows.

[tim_m]

I wouldn't say we're out of the woods yet with way with Ian based on Trump's recent statements. As far as a recession it's gonna happen. It always does at some point and history shows it's every 10 years or so. We're at just over 10 now.

Tim,

I agree with you about Iran.  We still have considerable work to do and the Iranian government has basically said they won't talk to this administration because they don't trust them.  We'll see if that holds up.  More fallout from pulling out of the deal Iran was complying with. 

It is funny to see conservatives, as the good Senator does, above, laud Trump for giving the order to bomb Iran before, at the last possible minute, pulling out.  ALMOST killing hundreds of innocent people is now something to be commended?  And giving him credit for NOT listening to the people HE appointed?  Um...no.  He appointed singularly unqualified candidates in so many positions...yet no mention of his terrible judgement? HOW many people have left, been fired, or proved categorically (HUD, Dept of Education) they can't do their jobs? Yikes.  Once again, instead of being able to criticize him for the failings that led to this point....they can only find praise for him. It's like praising the drunk driver, doing 90, with bad brakes for managing to swerve JUST in time to avoid crashing in to the bus full of people.  Just....mind boggling.

As an aside: Have you seen anyone in this thread actually predict economic collapse? I mean OTHER than conservatives who lie and attribute it to the indie/lib posters? I haven't, but...I figured I'd ask in case I missed something.

This seems like a particularly prevalent lie amongst the conservatives posting in this thread.  The good Senator and I went round and round about this PAGES ago!  Its such an obvious lie, I'm not sure why anyone would continue to perpetuate it? It is FAKE NEWS, and actual (not just intellectual) dishonesty.

I've seen lots of indie/lib posters say the economy is doing fine.  Not great. Not amazing.  With some indicators that things are slowing down a bit based on data and economists evaluations. That, despite conservatives insistence, not everything is unicorns and rainbows.

Not to mention all the positions that aren't filled. We have no secretary of defense! Did you by any chance catch Chris Christie's interview on the season finale of AXIOS? I mean just wow.

The economy is doing fine for people who are wealthy and who are in the market, not so much for your average american. At some point it will go into a recession. That's just facts, when you never know but in our history it has never been more then 10 years give or take between one.

On another topic, that exchange between Trump and Putin, what the fucking what?

[pilferk]

Not to mention all the positions that aren't filled. We have no secretary of defense! Did you by any chance catch Chris Christie's interview on the season finale of AXIOS? I mean just wow.

The economy is doing fine for people who are wealthy and who are in the market, not so much for your average american. At some point it will go into a recession. That's just facts, when you never know but in our history it has never been more then 10 years give or take between one.

On another topic, that exchange between Trump and Putin, what the fucking what?

Every fucking time they are in a room together.....Trump epically fails.  Not minor foibles.  But...like....totally fails on an epic level that makes you question (again) why this guy is President.  Every. Damn. Time.

And he sits there and practically licks Putins nuts, he's so subservient to him.  Trumps the typical alpha male asshole until he's in a room with Putin.  Then he's Putins bitch.  And he says and does the stupidest things possible.

It is either the worst coincidence in modern political history......or it's not.  Either way, it's awful. And hard to watch.

I'd also point out: If that was Obama in the room with Putin, and his reaction, the Republican Congress would have drafted articles of impeachment within a week, and the Senate would have convicted within 90 days.  OK, maybe that's hyperbole. But, to be sure.....they would have lost their ever loving shit (and rightfully so).  Instead, they sit back and fawn over this feckless, ineffective, man-child who seems to have a massive, stuttering, crush on a ruthless dictator.  I guess Trump has a type, eh?

As for recession, I certainly don't think we're there, yet. And I've certainly never thought we were in store for economic collapse...Obama left the economy too strong, and too well shored up. And Trump has done nothing radical to effect the economy much, either way. Tariffs will eventually have some downward effect, but we haven't seen a marked effect yet (and I emphasize YET, because retailers are now saying prices are going up to end Q2/begin Q3). We might be headed for a softening...we'll see. Some of the numbers, like the Treasury Curve, indicate we might be. Projected GDP growth for Q2, right now, is hovering right around 2%.  Last projection I saw actually put it at 1.8%.  We'll see if that's true in a few weeks.  Unemployment numbers and job growth have flattened out, too, this year.

Eventually recession will happen.  As you said, that's the cycle.  The challenge is to shorten that period as much as possible.  We'll have to see if that happens under Trump's watch or not. IF it does (and that's a big if), I think he's sunk for reelection.  Ditto if the economy flattens out over the next year or so. But we'll see.

[pilferk]

Tim,

The one thing I wanted to add (and this is notable for BOTH Obama and Trumps administrations):

In most recoveries post recession, once we hit "full employment" (which happened at the tail end of Obama's presidency and has been true throughout Trumps), we've seen significant wage growth, for the middle class, especially.

We haven't seen that, this time. Not really.  And wage growth, for the longest time, was barely keeping up with (and often lagging behind) inflation.  Even now, it's not really outpacing inflation by THAT much. 

So things got better for those at the top (again) but those in the middle are, adjusted for inflation, making what they were 20+ years ago. Or longer.

Corporations are being VERY slow to use those tax breaks to raise wages, and scarcity of potential employees isn't forcing wages up either.  It's the thing this recovery has really lacked.....and no Republican seems to want to address.  Trickle down, once again, not working.

[sandman]

So who else is happy that we didn't go to war with Iran the other day?

Time for Trump to fire Bolton. 

he's handling this in such an incredible way. agree on firing Bolton.

if ANYONE else were prez, we'd be at war. two and half years in, and he hasn't buckled to the pressure of the war hawks controlling the world. major fucking balls!

another "prediction" made by many libs that has yet to be proven true.

Weren't we supposed to be in World War 3 by now?   

Trump made the right call. And he didn't allow himself to be swayed by the likes of bolton.
 

all the libs were scared (their words, not mine). nuclear holocaust was coming!

and they've been predicting a economic meltdown for 2 years now!! because ya know, our economic experts in this thread are so seasoned in analyzing trends and they would NEVER just find whatever stat they need to fit their narrative. 

you just gotta laugh. 

but at least no one in here is harming themselves because of trump:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/florida-woman-stabs-herself-tired-donald-trump-100050004.html

I wouldn't say we're out of the woods yet with way with Ian based on Trump's recent statements. As far as a recession it's gonna happen. It always does at some point and history shows it's every 10 years or so. We're at just over 10 now.

after 2.5 years, he's clearly the least war hungry president of my lifetime. big reason why people voted for him, and he's delivered.

when trump got elected, you literally said you are "scared."  one reason was that you said he would cause a recession.

yes, a recession will come at some point. but the fact that the economy is still kicking major ass 30+ months into Trump's presidency is evidence that he's doing a good job. after 24 months, it's the current president's economy. so many predicted deregulation would kill us, tariffs would kill us, tax reform will kill us, uncertainty with Trump being elected will cause the market to crash, etc., etc.

all were wrong. give some credit where credit is due.

[tim_m]

Tim,

The one thing I wanted to add (and this is notable for BOTH Obama and Trumps administrations):

In most recoveries post recession, once we hit "full employment" (which happened at the tail end of Obama's presidency and has been true throughout Trumps), we've seen significant wage growth, for the middle class, especially.

We haven't seen that, this time. Not really.  And wage growth, for the longest time, was barely keeping up with (and often lagging behind) inflation.  Even now, it's not really outpacing inflation by THAT much. 

So things got better for those at the top (again) but those in the middle are, adjusted for inflation, making what they were 20+ years ago. Or longer.

Corporations are being VERY slow to use those tax breaks to raise wages, and scarcity of potential employees isn't forcing wages up either.  It's the thing this recovery has really lacked.....and no Republican seems to want to address.  Trickle down, once again, not working.

Did you catch the interview i mentioned in my previous post BTW?

[pilferk]

Tim,

The one thing I wanted to add (and this is notable for BOTH Obama and Trumps administrations):

In most recoveries post recession, once we hit "full employment" (which happened at the tail end of Obama's presidency and has been true throughout Trumps), we've seen significant wage growth, for the middle class, especially.

We haven't seen that, this time. Not really.  And wage growth, for the longest time, was barely keeping up with (and often lagging behind) inflation.  Even now, it's not really outpacing inflation by THAT much. 

So things got better for those at the top (again) but those in the middle are, adjusted for inflation, making what they were 20+ years ago. Or longer.

Corporations are being VERY slow to use those tax breaks to raise wages, and scarcity of potential employees isn't forcing wages up either.  It's the thing this recovery has really lacked.....and no Republican seems to want to address.  Trickle down, once again, not working.

Did you catch the interview i mentioned in my previous post BTW?

Not yet. Gonna try tomorrow. Friday and today are a little nuts!!

[tim_m]

Tim,

The one thing I wanted to add (and this is notable for BOTH Obama and Trumps administrations):

In most recoveries post recession, once we hit "full employment" (which happened at the tail end of Obama's presidency and has been true throughout Trumps), we've seen significant wage growth, for the middle class, especially.

We haven't seen that, this time. Not really.  And wage growth, for the longest time, was barely keeping up with (and often lagging behind) inflation.  Even now, it's not really outpacing inflation by THAT much. 

So things got better for those at the top (again) but those in the middle are, adjusted for inflation, making what they were 20+ years ago. Or longer.

Corporations are being VERY slow to use those tax breaks to raise wages, and scarcity of potential employees isn't forcing wages up either.  It's the thing this recovery has really lacked.....and no Republican seems to want to address.  Trickle down, once again, not working.

Did you catch the interview i mentioned in my previous post BTW?

Not yet. Gonna try tomorrow. Friday and today are a little nuts!!

Oh ok, it eye opening and shocking.