2020 US Election (Part One)

[onejayhawk]

How would you describe his "running the country"? Are you talking about his staffing government agencies? Proposing legislation? Inspiring people? Setting out new policies at home and for foreign relations? Please explain what you mean. Thanks.

Better than average. It's hard to overlook a landmark achievement like N Korea. Tax reform was necessary and he saw that done. Generally, he actions to facilitate trade have worked. I have some issues but no big problems at the policy level.

Like many, my biggest issues are with him personally. I understand his constant feud with the media is tactically useful but it's still a pain.

To flesh out why I say he is likely to be re-elected, the LEI is looking strong through 2019. Even if we have already peaked, growth is expected through the start of the primary season. Trump can run on the economy.
https://www.conference-board.org/data/bcicountry.cfm?cid=1

J

 

[Cloud_Strife]

He literally hasn't achieved any measurable means of success in regards to north Korea.

 

[Arakhor]

If Trump is running America "better than average", you have some very odd parameters by which you define success.

 

[onejayhawk]

He literally hasn't achieved any measurable means of success in regards to north Korea.

Definitely not true. This alone was unthinkable two years ago.

If Trump is running America "better than average", you have some very odd parameters by which you define success.

If you unpack this, how much is simply bad PR? Of the rest, how much is purely partisan?

I enlarged my post since you posted this. Does it change your view?

J

 

[Arakhor]

If you subscribe to the Great Man view of history, then maybe prevailing currents in the country can be attributed to the serving president, but other than that very specific North Korean opportunity, his only notable policies have been to please a select bunch of conservatives and make himself the centre of attention most times.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Definitely not true. This alone was unthinkable two years ago.

J

That doesn't look like a Trump accomplishment to me. That looks like a US ally changing sides in the wake of demonstrated unreliability by the US. Pretty much an anti-accomplishment, but you are known for seeing things backwards so no surprise.

 

[onejayhawk]

If you subscribe to the Great Man view of history, then maybe prevailing currents in the country can be attributed to the serving president, but other than that very specific North Korean opportunity, his only notable policies have been to please a select bunch of conservatives and make himself the centre of attention most times.

I must admit I find this outlook seriously nearsighted. If nothing else, tax reform was essential.

J

 

[Estebonrober]

I must admit I find this outlook seriously nearsighted. If nothing else, tax reform was essential.

J

It really wasn't. It has given a fairly pathetic boost to a already decent economy. It pushed massive amounts of cash into pockets already lined with cash. Obama's stimulus was bad economics on close inspection this tax cut was terrible economics on close inspection. That's played out in the polling on it. People know its not helping them.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Better than average. It's hard to overlook a landmark achievement like N Korea. Tax reform was necessary and he saw that done. Generally, he actions to facilitate trade have worked. I have some issues but no big problems at the policy level.

Like many, my biggest issues are with him personally. I understand his constant feud with the media is tactically useful but it's still a pain.

To flesh out why I say he is likely to be re-elected, the LEI is looking strong through 2019. Even if we have already peaked, growth is expected through the start of the primary season. Trump can run on the economy.
https://www.conference-board.org/data/bcicountry.cfm?cid=1

J

I agree that the LEI does look good through Oct. But Trump doesn't seem to want to run on the economy. And the "tax reform" has run out of steam as far as 90% of the people are concerned. I'd give him a C on the economy since he has done little to actually help it and may cause it more actual harm with his trade policies. The tax reform was a Republican push through that he just signed. He gets no credit for that. If being president only meant those two things he could score above a D, but it isn't and he has failed mightily on every other front: staffing the government, hiring the best people, being truthful, following the constitution, creating domestic policy that makes sense and benefits the country, creating foreign policy that makes sense and benefits us and our allies, inspiring the nation, not wasting money to boost his own ego. Those and more are all important parts of being president. How do you balance these failings plus his personal failings against a tax cut for the rich and the extension of Obama's recovery? The fact that the two Koreas are talking is a good thing, but they seem to be doing that without us.

 

[JollyRoger]

I must admit I find this outlook seriously nearsighted. If nothing else, tax reform was essential.

J

When are we going to get it? What passed last year wasn't reform.

 

[onejayhawk]

That doesn't look like a Trump accomplishment to me. That looks like a US ally changing sides in the wake of demonstrated unreliability by the US. Pretty much an anti-accomplishment, but you are known for seeing things backwards so no surprise.

Thanks Tim. I haven't laughed that hard in a while.

Check for me; when was the last N Korean nuclear test?

It really wasn't. It has given a fairly pathetic boost to a already decent economy. It pushed massive amounts of cash into pockets already lined with cash. Obama's stimulus was bad economics on close inspection this tax cut was terrible economics on close inspection. That's played out in the polling on it. People know its not helping them.

Not the personal tax cut. That we could have done without. The business tax design needed to become competitive with other nations. Hence, tax reform not tax cut. In effect, the old plan was a tariff on our own businesses.

J

 

[Birdjaguar]

Not the personal tax cut. That we could have done without. The business tax design needed to become competitive with other nations. Hence, tax reform not tax cut. In effect, the old plan was a tariff on our own businesses.

J

And how do you like the increased deficits? Do you approve of them?

 

[onejayhawk]

And how do you like the increased deficits? Do you approve of them?

No. I did not say I liked the tax reform. I said it was necessary. The expression is, "The cost of doing business." In this case, it's literally so.

J

 

[Birdjaguar]

No. I did not say I liked the tax reform. I said it was necessary.

J

What did the tax reform achieve that was necessary? What problem did it solve?

 

[Sommerswerd]

That doesn't look like a Trump accomplishment to me. That looks like a US ally changing sides in the wake of demonstrated unreliability by the US. Pretty much an anti-accomplishment, but you are known for seeing things backwards so no surprise.

Exactly this. Trump isn't even in the photo. That's not by accident.

 

[Berzerker]

He literally hasn't achieved any measurable means of success in regards to north Korea.

I haven't seen NK missiles flying around over there in a while

What did the tax reform achieve that was necessary? What problem did it solve?

The cuts help US business compete better

 

[Birdjaguar]

The cuts help US business compete better

How do stock buybacks help them compete? How does a 20% reduction is taxable pass through income help companies compete? If the tax cuts were contingent upon capital investments and/or wage investments or training you might be right. But they were not.

 

[Berzerker]

How do stock buybacks help them compete? How does a 20% reduction is taxable pass through income help companies compete? If the tax cuts were contingent upon capital investments and/or wage investments or training you might be right. But they were not.

Did any businesses use the cuts to invest? Businesses buy back stock for a variety of reasons ostensibly to better their prospects. Do you believe increasing tax rates will make businesses more competitive? Seems to me businesses seek out low tax jurisdictions so they can better compete.

 

[Arakhor]

I must admit I find this outlook seriously nearsighted. If nothing else, tax reform was essential.

Well, forgive me if I don't spend my name peering at the fine details on partisan tax cuts in the US, but presumably a tax reform would already start to have had benefits by now.

 

[Dekker]

Seems to me businesses seek out low tax jurisdictions so they can better compete.

Who is Apple really competing with so much so they needed Ireland...