To those who voted for Trump
Forums › General Discussion › To those who voted for Trump-
𝕾𝖙𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖊𝖗 𝕷𝖊𝖊 wrote:
And let’s throw in that executive order eliminating forest protections too.
Nothing would make folks in Cali rural areas more happy than this. The tree huggers ran the logging industry out of the state in the 70’s and 80’s & adopted a let it burn naturally policy to manage state forests- now they are overgrown, fire hazards and the state can’t cope with citizen complaints on insurance rates, health hazards from a decade of the worst fires in state history & the Governor doing fuck all to change it. Clear cutting was the issue back in the 70’s and that style is not done anymore in US logging. North Cali was home to many massive logging companies and mills that employed 10’s of thousands Nowadays there is 1& they mostly do logging of salvage timber after a fire rolled through an area.
-
Meanwhile Trump changed the approach when it comes to federal forests in California to lower fire risk and tapped that one remaining company in my area to do the work. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sacramento/news/fuel-break-network-to-protect-california-forests-from-fires/
-
𝕾𝖙𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖊𝖗 𝕷𝖊𝖊 wrote:
What an unexpected shocker.
Today’s stock market lost 4 TRILLION in value amid recession fears.
Of course, the Banana Republicans are trying to spin this as Biden‘s fault.
No. It has nothing… absolutely nothing to do with senseless tariffs against our allies.
Oh – and Muskrat just said he’s going to eliminate Social Security as well. Hopefully grandma and grandpa don’t have to go back out into the workforce. Not sure if their computer skills are up-to-date?
Donnie also said no more protections for America’s forests since Canada won’t be shipping us their lumber.
With a drastic 180 degree change in energy policy, government contracts on a national level & drastic global tariff policies the market would be expected to fall. Investment firms worth hundreds of billions pull their money from higher risk areas to a safer harbor until they are comfortable with where they will reassign it
-
They are selling at a relative high point, waiting for the market to reset in the industrial and consumer goods markets and then they will pick their perceived “winners” to invest in- while the prices for these new “winners” are also impacted by reduced values. They will sell high and buy low as the market shifts significantly on a global scale
-
And yes he is a blow hard used car salesman- but sometimes that’s what it takes to turn an out of control spender out of their sports car and into a econo box.
-
𝕾𝖙𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖊𝖗 𝕷𝖊𝖊 wrote:
1. Trees are not in short supply. We plant what we grow. It’s the definition of a renewable resource, and there’s no need to expand to protected forests.Feel free to point anything out. :)
2. Elon DID NOT say he was eliminating social security and Medicare. They are the biggest expenditure, even over defense, and indicated there were billions of waste there, not trillions. End the waste.
3. We do not say the stock market dumped 4 trillion, we say it in percentages, because it’s so massive compared to the federal budget. Nasdaq was actually up today. We say it’s down 2 points, not down 4 trillion. That might be considered misleading otherwise.
-
You must admit, you didn’t quote quotes, even out of context. You just went nuclear with “Muh Grampa was made homeless by a Nazi!”
-
Brown🎵Note wrote:
The S&P dropped $4T, or 8.6%, since peak in mid-February. I think ‘since peak’ is the part we should pay attention to here. Eventually, losses are expected. At the same time, economic indicators were suggesting that recession fears were subsiding, and it is quite a shock to see these erratic policies possibly putting us on course for recession once again.𝕾𝖙𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖊𝖗 𝕷𝖊𝖊 wrote:
Feel free to point anything out. :)
3. We do not say the stock market dumped 4 trillion, we say it in percentages, because it’s so massive compared to the federal budget. Nasdaq was actually up today. We say it’s down 2 points, not down 4 trillion. That might be considered misleading otherwise.
-
⚸яѻɢɛʀ✞тɦǟȶ⛧ wrote:
However, they are not erratic. They were talked about before even being put into action. During campaign.Brown🎵Note wrote:
The S&P dropped $4T, or 8.6%, since peak in mid-February. I think ‘since peak’ is the part we should pay attention to here. Eventually, losses are expected. At the same time, economic indicators were suggesting that recession fears were subsiding, and it is quite a shock to see these erratic policies possibly putting us on course for recession once again.𝕾𝖙𝖆𝖌𝖌𝖊𝖗 𝕷𝖊𝖊 wrote:
Feel free to point anything out. :)
3. We do not say the stock market dumped 4 trillion, we say it in percentages, because it’s so massive compared to the federal budget. Nasdaq was actually up today. We say it’s down 2 points, not down 4 trillion. That might be considered misleading otherwise.
-
𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐜𝐨𝐞♞ wrote:
If on again off again tariffs, shunning 80yr? allies and trade partners, drastic shedding/restricturing of govt policy/employees, etc, etc are not drastic to you, perhaps you have spent your 2 year retirement in some ayahuasca fever dream. For me, and others who prefer more incremental and stable change, more in line with what we previously had, I do (did during campaign) find these policies erratic.⚸яѻɢɛʀ✞тɦǟȶ⛧ wrote: The S&P dropped $4T, or 8.6%, since peak in mid-February. I think ‘since peak’ is the part we should pay attention to here. Eventually, losses are expected. At the same time, economic indicators were suggesting that recession fears were subsiding, and it is quite a shock to see these erratic policies possibly putting us on course for recession once again.
However, they are not erratic. They were talked about before even being put into action. During campaign. -
There used to be grants available to study the ayahuasca fever dream
-
⚸яѻɢɛʀ✞тɦǟȶ⛧ wrote:
if only you knew how you looked to the outside (majority) world who voted for him. Letting them take advantage of us is even more outlandish and fever-dreamish to support. Grow up. Swallow it.𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐜𝐨𝐞♞ wrote:
If on again off again tariffs, shunning 80yr? allies and trade policies erratic.⚸яѻɢɛʀ✞тɦǟȶ⛧ wrote: The S&P dropped $4T, or 8.6%, since peak in mid-February. I think ‘since peak’ is the part we should pay attention to here. Eventually, losses are expected. At the same time, economic indicators were suggesting that recession fears were subsiding, and it is quite a shock to see these erratic policies possibly putting us on course for recession once again.
However, they are not erratic. They were talked about before even being put into action. During campaign. -
“Okay yea they’ve gotten the better bargain but I’d rather them do it for longer and slowly cut it off than rather than just rip off the bandaid like a normal adult”. Great critical thinking.
-
𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐜𝐨𝐞♞ wrote:
Lol true. Hope you are well brother -Vizier“Okay yea they’ve gotten the better bargain but I’d rather them do it for longer and slowly cut it off than rather than just rip off the bandaid like a normal adult”. Great critical thinking.
-
ᵐ📡ᵣ 𝓐𝓯𝓽𝔂𝓻🌐𝓛𝔂𝓯𝓮™ wrote:
NO WAY holy shit it’s been a minute. I wish you and your family health and happiness my man!𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐜𝐨𝐞♞ wrote:
Lol true. Hope you are well brother -Vizier“Okay yea they’ve gotten the better bargain but I’d rather them do it for longer and slowly cut it off than rather than just rip off the bandaid like a normal adult”. Great critical thinking.
-
〓∞Persephone∞〓 wrote:
Best comment ever.There used to be grants available to study the ayahuasca fever dream
-
℣į₭ϊ₦Ǥ👹 wrote:
Social security is a tax rather than an investment, really. It’s a shame the government leads us on to think it’s a retirement plan that we pay into.Let’s say Bob makes on average $50k taxable income a year from 25-65. Bob pays his 6.2% social security tax. I also pay 6.2% for Bob to the government because I’m his employer. But for fun let’s pretend I don’t.
Investing Bob’s 6.2% a year($3100) on average invested in the S&P over 40 years Bob would have about $1,375,000.
Now instead Bob pays social security and retires at 65. He gets a check for $1,592 a month. Let’s say Bob is crazy lucky and lives to 95. Bob will have collected $573,120.
Now remember we’re not even counting in the employer 6.2% contribution.
Oh and when Bob dies at 72 of that heart attack? His family gets nothing.
Yea, now let’s hear again how I don’t understand social security and it’s not a complete scam.
-
Wow, I only was away for a few hours. What a storm! Fun!
Simcoe: The only thing you said was that the US was on the short end of trading. No numbers to indicate any particular damage?
The only convincing factor you mentioned was unpredictability - yes. Absolutely that’s a part of it. And these tariffs have a LOT to do with it.
But there are actual numbers and economics involved with tariffs.
So now my turn on these “tariffs“.
Trump claims that a tariff is a tax on a foreign country. That is 100% FALSE.
Tariffs are fees on imported goods - paid by the importer. That means US businesses paying more for incoming goods. That fee is passed on to the consumer.
Trump claims that fees will not be passed on to the consumer. Oh really? Well, history tells us otherwise folks.
Let’s look at one simple historical data point the last time he imposed tariffs.
Imported Washing Machines: accumulatively prices rose up by 1.5 billion. That is fact. Look it up.
However, we don’t even need hundreds of examples.
-
There’s plenty to look up if you want the history of tariffs. For the ultimate test on history: Please refer to the Great Depression of which tariffs played a major part.
The whole premise of tariffs, rectifying some “injustice” by other nations… Is patently false. He has done nothing to fix an imaginary problem.
It’s literally like he’s asking the fire department to spray down a house that isn’t on fire.
“There now! I put that fire out!” Uhhh. Not really Donnie.
So… I’m still looking for this fire that Donnie is talking about if anybody could explain it to me. This is horrible injustice that needs to be rectified.
-
If we didn’t force people to pay into SS, some/many would save nothing. If this were the case, what would be the US’ obligation to them in old age when they could not work? To what age would be the expectation that they worked, till death? Are we going to let people starve and die because they didn’t have savings?
-
KING: are you familiar with the George Bush and the last time they floated the idea of privatizing Social Security?
Guess what would’ve happened if your life savings was floating out on Wall Street in 2008 after the big crash?
Yeah. Gone.
Know why they wanna dip in to that money? Because it’s easy takings.
Big players love a crashed stock market. Why? They buy back at pennies for those stocks. How convenient right?
Fact:
- Bush 1: Savings and loan collapse. Fixed by Clinton. He handed the most prosperous economy in history over to George.
- Bush 2: one of the worst collapses in history, Fixed by Obama
- Trump’s botched Covid collapse, not 100% fixed, but was on the way by Biden.
- Current Trump administration? Oh, it’s already happening.
Yeah. Put all your Social Security on Wall Street and just wait a while to see what happens.
-
Trump‘s other BS argument: jobs will come back to America?
Really? How long will it take for companies to set up shop again?
You know… Build a bunch of factories here and there to get production rolling?
Oh… But then there’s a little snag: The American worker will not work for less than $100 a month.
Fact: look it up. $100 is what most Third World country “employees” get working for American businesses.
CEOs definitely won’t be getting those hundred million dollar bonuses. And they will certainly have a lot of explaining to do to their investors.
But hey… Maybe the whole point of crashing the economy is so that Americans will work for less than $100 a month?
Who the fudge knows with this 6x bankruptcy clown?
-
⚸яѻɢɛʀ✞тɦǟȶ⛧ wrote:
If we didn’t force people to pay into SS, some/many would save nothing. If this were the case, what would be the US’ obligation to them in old age when they could not work? To what age would be the expectation that they worked, till death? Are we going to let people starve and die because they didn’t have savings?
-
You have a very minimal understanding of economics. And you’re forgetting the major goal of tariffs. To encourage American made and bought products. This in the long term, will make us very wealthy and more independent. If you do not want to look at foreign trade since ww2 (when it became unfair) that’s on you.
But to say that I’m incorrect is hilarious. Because what I told you is what a variety of fiduciaries have told me, what I’ve heard from consulting firms, and various other professionals. Keep arguing with yourself from this point forward.
I addressed everything you’ve asked. You have failed to retort to institutions with money linked to Vangaurd and BlackRock placing put options.
I thought facts matter to you?
-
Persephone: The executive order allowing for the cutting down of forests is not addressing “tree huggers.”
It’s about giving carte blanche to companies who could give a crap less about national parks or devaluing certain communities that may not want the forests behind their properties destroyed.
We already have allocated portions of land for that purpose.
Frankly, if Republicans had any balls, they would legalize hemp, which would reduce a considerable amount of our lumber needs. (the paper part.)
(Remember everyone: The Constitution was written on hemp paper. And the ropes used during World War II were created by hemp plants.)
All this said – it’s astonishing that anyone can be happy to see the environment destroyed… Where it doesn’t need to be. It’s de-facto psychotic if you ask me.
-
𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐜𝐨𝐞♞ wrote:
Did you see my post about overseas American made products“?You have a very minimal understanding of economics. And you’re forgetting the major goal of tariffs. To encourage American made and bought products. This in the long term, will make us very wealthy and more independent. If you do not want to look at foreign trade since ww2 (when it became unfair) that’s on you.
But to say that I’m incorrect is hilarious. Because what I told you is what a variety of fiduciaries have told me, what I’ve heard from consulting firms, and various other professionals. Keep arguing with yourself from this point forward.
I addressed everything you’ve asked. You have failed to retort to institutions with money linked to Vangaurd and BlackRock placing put options.
I thought facts matter to you?
Companies who left decades ago - are not going to get Americans to work for less than $100 a month. I guarantee
-
𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐜𝐨𝐞♞ wrote:
Please give me numbers on these tariffs. And tell me how they are rectifying some grand injustice.You have a very minimal understanding of economics. And you’re forgetting the major goal of tariffs. To encourage American made and bought products. This in the long term, will make us very wealthy and more independent. If you do not want to look at foreign trade since ww2 (when it became unfair) that’s on you.
But to say that I’m incorrect is hilarious. Because what I told you is what a variety of fiduciaries have told me, what I’ve heard from consulting firms, and various other professionals. Keep arguing with yourself from this point forward.
I addressed everything you’ve asked. You have failed to retort to institutions with money linked to Vangaurd and BlackRock placing put options.
I thought facts matter to you?
You did not
-
𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐜𝐨𝐞♞ wrote:
So your point is that “trade has been unfair between America and the world” which in economics terms would mean you import more from eg Ireland than you export to Ireland. Still with me? Because I have some crayons…...
Anyway, this shows how dependent America is on its trading partners. You solution to this problem is to pay more for your imports, because that’s what a tariff is, it’s a fee that *you* as the consumer end up paying.
In summary: American people buy lots of products from outside america. Trump tells them “this is bad and I’m gonna fix it” and tries to do this by passing extra costs for your stuff back to you.
-
Uglyladdie wrote:
What extra costs have I been blessed with? I’m very eager to hear what they might be from someone who knows nothing about me lol. And no, actually, you’re not following correctly at all. Look up all of the tariffs and margins and voluntary penalties we took for nearly all trade deals with Europe starting from the late 1940’s and onwards to today. We blessed them with handouts to recover from the nasty war. This should go on no more𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐜𝐨𝐞♞ wrote:
So your point is that “trade has been unfair between America and the world” which in economics terms would mean you import more from eg Ireland than you export to Ireland. Still with me? Because I have some crayons…...
Anyway, this shows what a tariff is, it’s a fee that *you* as the consumer end up paying.
In summary: American people buy lots tries to do this by passing extra costs for your stuff back to you.
-
And that is just one example. The United States and its people want FAIR deals. If this causes turbulence or “omg we’re gonna start a trade war” (never will happen) for the time being, then so be it. We voted for this, we want this. I, incredibly so, have no doubts so far which is better than I was expecting.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC