I’m sorry, telling me he was going to kill the same terrorists groups we were killing at the time does not wash. Or why Obama had no plans for after he killed Qaddafi.
That’s not what I said.
I guess it’s the memory thing.
Must be… But,I don’t think’s it’s mine…lol
Well you’re already the one making things up, so I can see why you might think that.
About 82% of the GOP tax cuts went to the top 1%.
The ACA repeal legislation that passed the House in May of 2017 occurred while Paul Ryan was Speaker.
I believe that Senator John McCain did the right thing with his vote to not repeal Obamacare. Our GOP Governor wasn’t for the repeal of the ACA at that time. (McCain’s vote against the repeal of the ACA was before when Senators Graham and Cassidy came forth with their healthcare plan.)
The Democrats won as many as 40 House seats in the midterms mainly due to the healthcare issue.
If McCain was not going to vote like he promised he should has said so. He was very dishonorable in that vote. He even made a speech about being a statesmen before going back on his promise. Telling the world he knew he was being spiteful.
Yes, unlike dems, the pre-Trump rep party had no legislation ready to go to return liberty and freedom in health care. That’s why Trump won!
You would have to link me to how they define the 82%… Sounds like you mean the corp tax cuts, which have lots of middle and lower class investors who did well too…
How much of the stock market is owned by the middle and lower classes?
Tons when you consider the state pension funds and 401ks…
No, the top 10% own 84% of all equities.
Of the bottom 80%, less than half own any stock. Less than a third own stock with a value of $5000 or more in total assets.
Obviously, That’s because they own much more stock than poorer people.
What percent of people own stocks, 401k’s, or have pension invested in the market is a better measure. Not how much of the market is owned by the top 10%.
I included that in my second paragraph. Of the 3 middle quintiles, less than half own any stock. About a third have assets greater than $5,000. About a quarter own assets greater than $10,000. Hardly “Tons” like you stated.
You see, I actually base my assertions on data rather than feeeelings.
It does not matter who owns what percent of the stock market. That’s irrelevant.
I doubt your “Less than a third own stock with a value of $5000 or more in total assets.” includes state pension holders.
And the tax cuts gave people jobs, so you have to take into account those who indirectly benefited just by working.
Your doubt is meaningless. That’s stock ownership regardless of direct or indirect ownership via funds.
“broken all records” Has he? are you sure? All the records for employment?
That’s again FAILING to see the level of employment.
When you get to near full employment it is much harder to make gains, yet Trump MADE THEM - and that is despite this being a baby-boom retirement time, when we should expect it to be even HARDER to get to historic levels of employment.
We have all-time highs in employment for minorities and a fifty year high for women. That didn’t happen in a vacuum. That happend while we have huge retirement at the same time.
There are more jobs available than there are workers. Obama never had that situation in 8 years.
Then you have had good leadership that has nurtured your economy. Congrats!
So many levels of wrong. Clearly not familiar with a concept called “labor participation rate.”
Spending is a function of the Congress, as you well know.
And it has nothing to do with how fantastic the employment situation is. The employment situation is great because of the corporate tax cuts and the deregulation - both of which has super-charged business - ESPECIALLY small business, which hires the most people from the typical unemployed rolls, first.
Yes. Trump inherited near full employment (4.8%) and continued the Obama trend (except that he doubled the deficit and increased spending back to 2009 levels) by lowering it 1% in 2 years. MAGA. Woof woof
MOST human trafficking comes over the border where there is no protection, so that’s nonsense. If you make it harder to use unprotected areas it will make it easier to patrol ALL areas.
That is the same for drugs. If you make it harder to use unprotected areas the drugs will have to come in much more at the ports of entry. And if you are NOT using so many people to patrol unprotected areas you can use more at the ports of entry and increase drug interdiction there.
There is simply NO WAY that the wall won’t help both situations and it is SO CHEAP that there is no reason not to do it…except that Donald Trump proposed it.