American Politics

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2823893]Lolol. Yeah, that is the magical, mystical aspect of it, right?

You hang onto that idea that Trump's Pandemic just "came along" out of nowhere and maybe dummies who aren't paying attention will, you know, not vote for the one Party that can and has prevented those horrific results from magically, mystically materializing.

So the Pandemic, the Great Depression, Eisenhower's three Recessions and crap jobs creation, the S&L Crisis, Reagan's Great Recession, the Financial Crisis, Bush's Great Recession, Trump's $2. 5 Trillion in deficit spending to create fewer jobs with it than without it, his Great Jobs Destruction and Worldwide Economic / Supply-Chain Collapes, etc, etc, all just "came along."

It is only a wild coincidence that none of those things "come along" under Dem economic stewardship. And an even wilder coincidence that all of the notable boomtimes and historic jobs gains in decades and decades and decades happen under Dem stewardship and none under Repub stewardship.

Those great results just "come along" in magical, mystical ways too, don't they?

Poor Repubs. So unlucky.[/QUOTE]Most people are smart enough to know the pandemic came out of Biden buddy China. Even the democrats admit it. But obviously the communists are still protecting China. Biden spending of 7 trillion pretty much makes Trumps 2. 5 trillion look small.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2823895]You are in "financial wealth planning" and you actually say stuff publicly, I mean loud enough for potential clients to hear, like "The Fed lowers rates when the economy is roaring along and raises them when the economy is doing poorly"?

And stuff like, "That historic Relief Rally in the market immediately after Biden kicked him out of office was a sure sign of how great everyone thought Trump's policies were"?

And stuff like, "$2.5 Trillion added to the deficit in Trump's one and only economic legislation passed in 4 years in exchange for not even 1 percentage point gain in GDP Growth and about a Million fewer jobs created with it than without it was a brilliant, good deal for America"?

Seriously? You actually do that and still squeak out a living?

I am impressed.[/QUOTE]You don't have a clue do you? How do you continue making up this shit?

[QUOTE=CaliGuy;2823807]San Diego is still one of the better cities in CA as the area I live in is about 50/50 democrats and republicans. [b]But I will retire in Texas or possible Wyoming[/b] and get out of this CA mess in about 7 years. Of course our area still has some of the progressive socialists like Bernie and Tooms. Being with a major wealth management company that is in every state I have to be pretty neutral on politics and I rarely discuss politics with the liberals but I can say that all my clients benefited greatly from the Trump presidency. Majority of my clients bought into energy oil stocks on my recommendations when Biden went to war on domestic oil and it has minimized their losses from Biden incompetence. Many Californians on fixed income are really struggling though with the high costs. Biden inflation is even worse here with Newsome policies.[/QUOTE]Ahhhh, the West. Where men are men. And the sheep are scared.

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2824062]Ahhhh, the West. Where men are men. And the sheep are scared.[/QUOTE]Don't be silly PVMonger. Thanks to globalization we don't need sheep anymore! We've got Mexican hookers in border towns from Matamoros to Tijuana! Asian Massage Parlors in every town over 5,000 population! And Cuban strippers in every gentlemen's club!

And besides, our Colombian brethren taught us that burros are far preferable to sheep.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VKWLC87Uzw[/URL]

[QUOTE=CaliGuy;2823766][URL]https://i.pinimg.com/736x/6b/a6/0f/6ba60fc2d49a42c61bf6f7cd8f5227e3.jpg[/URL]

"A machine like this is required to move 500 tons of earth / ore which will be.

Refined into one lithium car battery. It burns 900-1000 gallons of fuel in a 12-hour shift.

Lithium is refined from ore using sulfuric acid. The proposed lithium mine at Thacker Pass, Nevada is estimated to require up to 75 semi-loads of sulfuric acid a day. ! The acid does not turn into unicorn food as AOC believes.

Refining lithium has created several EPA SUPERFUND SITES. IT IS VERY.

TOXIC TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

A battery in an electric car, let's say an average Tesla, is made of:

25 pounds of lithium.

60 pounds of nickel.

44 pounds of manganese.

30 pounds of cobalt.

200 pounds of copper.

And.

400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic, etc. Averaging 750-1,000 pounds of minerals, that had to be mined and processed.

Into a battery that merely stores electricity. Electricity which is generated by.

Oil, gas, coal, or water (and a tiny fraction of wind and solar).

That is the truth, about the lie, of "green" energy.

There's nothing green about the "Green New Deal".

You people better learn how to vote or this nonsense will continue to flow down on top of you from the throne of government upon of which you put these people.

Stop drinking the Green New Deal's sulfuric acid Kool-Aid. !

Dr. Phillip A. Fields.

University of South Alabama.

Mobile, Alabama.[/QUOTE]The Wall Street Journal had a good article on this today, about Toyota and EV's.

[URL]https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-toyota-for-its-electric-vehicle-heresy-akio-toyoda-hybrids-ev-climate-change-b5f67d6c?mod=opinion_major_pos1[/URL]

Here's an excerpt.

A Toyota memo to auto dealers in April explained the challenges to full electrification. For instance, "most public chargers can take anywhere from 8-30 hours to charge. To meet the federal (zero-emissions vehicle) sales targets, 1. 2 M public chargers are needed by 2030. That amounts to approximately 400 new chargers per day. " The USA Isn't close to meeting that goal.

Toyota also noted that "more than 300 new lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite mines are needed to meet the expected battery demand by 2035," and they could take decades to develop. [B] The amount of raw materials in one long-range battery electric vehicle could instead be used to make 6 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or 90 hybrid electric vehicles.

And heres an even more striking statistic: The overall carbon reduction of those 90 hybrids over their lifetimes is 37 times as much as a single battery electric vehicle.[/B] These inconvenient truths undermine the climate religion and government mandates.

End of excerpt

Volvo did a study where they looked at the number of months you'd need to drive one of their EV models for the carbon footprint of the EV not to exceed the carbon footprint of a conventional internal combustion auto. It was about 70 months, assuming you don't have to replace the batteries. Replace the batteries and it's longer than 70 months.

Anyway, I think Toyota is saying their hybrids have a smaller carbon footprint than the EV's! This would depend a lot of the source of the power used to charge the EV's though. If it's hydropower in Washington state, the EV's footprint would be a lot lower than if it's coal in West Virginia for example.

It sounds like the greenies are promoting policies that will actually increase carbon emissions, by insisting on EV's over hybrids!

Where have we seen this before? Well, I'd point out Biden's proposal to boost the maximum capital gains tax to 40.8%. That would be in a state with no income tax. In California you'd be looking at 54.1%. The Congressional Budget Office has traditionally assumed 28% is the revenue-maximizing capital gains rate. You raise the rate too high and people just don't sell assets, so they don't have to pay the tax. So you end up raising less revenues for the government with the higher tax!

This is all part of the Progressive Democrats "cut off your nose to spite your face" master plan.

[QUOTE=CaliGuy;2824041]
[b]Pandemic came from China[/b]
Most people are smart enough to know the pandemic came out of Biden buddy China. Even the democrats admit it. But obviously the communists are still protecting China. Biden spending of 7 trillion pretty much makes Trumps 2. 5 trillion look small.[/QUOTE]All indications are the [I]virus[/I] originated in China, very likely in the labs from which Trump defunded and removed all of the monitors whose actual job it was to alert the responsible authorities to such earliest emerging cases in order to prevent, say it with me, [I]a Pandemic.[/I].

Trump did that contrary to all expert warnings not to do something so stupid and dangerous because his doing so was laying the basic groundwork for allowing, say it with me, [I]a Pandemic[/I] to develop.

Trump did that at least 5 months before those first cases emerged in China when even he knew that a mere 2-3 month heads up about that would have been plenty of time to have avoided "all these problems", otherwise known as, say it with me, [I]a Pandemic.[/I].

It seems you know about as much about the difference between a virus and a Pandemic as the difference between a Great Recession, Massive Jobs Destruction and Skyrocketing Unemployment Rates and a mild recession artificially induced by the Fed in order to cool down an overheated economy, more jobs created in 2 1/2 years than in any other President's 4 year term and an unemployment rate still well into Full Employment below 4%.

You might want to steer clear of any career in finance or science.

[QUOTE=CaliGuy;2824055]You don't have a clue do you? How do you continue making up this shit?[/QUOTE]LOL. That "shit" was your position and what you were arguing for. Did you read your own post? You know, the one I quoted and merely reiterated as ordinary assertions?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2824082]The Wall Street Journal had a good article on this today, about Toyota and EV's.

[URL]https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-toyota-for-its-electric-vehicle-heresy-akio-toyoda-hybrids-ev-climate-change-b5f67d6c?mod=opinion_major_pos1[/URL]

Here's an excerpt.

A Toyota memo to auto dealers in April explained the challenges to full electrification. For instance, "most public chargers can take anywhere from 8-30 hours to charge. To meet the federal (zero-emissions vehicle) sales targets, 1. 2 M public chargers are needed by 2030. That amounts to approximately 400 new chargers per day. " The USA Isn't close to meeting that goal.

Toyota also noted that "more than 300 new lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite mines are needed to meet the expected battery demand by 2035," and they could take decades to develop. [B] The amount of raw materials in one long-range battery electric vehicle could instead be used to make 6 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or 90 hybrid electric vehicles.

And heres an even more striking statistic: The overall carbon reduction of those 90 hybrids over their lifetimes is 37 times as much as a single battery electric vehicle.[/B] These inconvenient truths undermine the climate religion and government mandates.

End of excerpt

Volvo did a study where they looked at the number of months you'd need to drive one of their EV models for the carbon footprint of the EV not to exceed the carbon footprint of a conventional internal combustion auto. It was about 70 months, assuming you don't have to replace the batteries. Replace the batteries and it's longer than 70 months.

Anyway, I think Toyota is saying their hybrids have a smaller carbon footprint than the EV's! This would depend a lot of the source of the power used to charge the EV's though. If it's hydropower in Washington state, the EV's footprint would be a lot lower than if it's coal in West Virginia for example.

It sounds like the greenies are promoting policies that will actually increase carbon emissions, by insisting on EV's over hybrids!

Where have we seen this before? Well, I'd point out Biden's proposal to boost the maximum capital gains tax to 40.8%. That would be in a state with no income tax. In California you'd be looking at 54.1%. The Congressional Budget Office has traditionally assumed 28% is the revenue-maximizing capital gains rate. You raise the rate too high and people just don't sell assets, so they don't have to pay the tax. So you end up raising less revenues for the government with the higher tax!

This is all part of the Progressive Democrats "cut off your nose to spite your face" master plan.[/QUOTE]Lithium extraction and everything involved with making batteries is only one thing wrong with this fantasy of electric cars. How can people be so fooled and stupid not to realize. But please remember, it's now the the's who are stupid but Reagan and Bush overturned Jimmy's order of having all vehicles get 40 mpg by I forget what year but it is well in the past now. Had we spent the time, brain power and money to comply we wouldn't need electric vehicles or even consider them today. They are ALL FOOLS. And we would not need to drill in the Gulf of Mexico or have the pipeline or need to fight wars for oil. Nobody paid attention to Joey giving away the leases to drill in the Gulf. If anyone was a Seinfeld fan, he reminds me of the role that Loyd Bridges played as the grandfather who still thought he was a tough guy.

No place to run or hide from the madness of both parties.

I laugh when I even think about the charging aspect. Had an argument with a guy here a while ago and he thought that some new short time charging would be invented. How's that for a fairy tale? Charge a car as fast as you can pump gas. It too funny. Maybe the Easter Bunny will come up with something.

All I know is that I pay gains on my portfolio even though its value has gone down! Why are there no working people in Congress? They are all lawyersor millionaires or both. They don't have a clue about reality.

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2824062]Ahhhh, the West. Where men are men. And the sheep are scared.[/QUOTE]I had several friends move to Wyoming to get out of this devastated state. No state income tax and they can start taking their huge gains from the Trump presidency and screw California out of the tax. Seems to be the pattern for about 200,000 people who left California the last couple of years to live In Republican states. Less taxes. Less crime. Less wokeness. It seems like the smart thing to do.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2824082]The Wall Street Journal had a good article on this today, about Toyota and EV's.

[URL]https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-toyota-for-its-electric-vehicle-heresy-akio-toyoda-hybrids-ev-climate-change-b5f67d6c?mod=opinion_major_pos1[/URL]

Here's an excerpt.

A Toyota memo to auto dealers in April explained the challenges to full electrification. For instance, "most public chargers can take anywhere from 8-30 hours to charge. To meet the federal (zero-emissions vehicle) sales targets, 1. 2 M public chargers are needed by 2030. That amounts to approximately 400 new chargers per day. " The USA Isn't close to meeting that goal.

Toyota also noted that "more than 300 new lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite mines are needed to meet the expected battery demand by 2035," and they could take decades to develop. [B] The amount of raw materials in one long-range battery electric vehicle could instead be used to make 6 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or 90 hybrid electric vehicles.

And heres an even more striking statistic: The overall carbon reduction of those 90 hybrids over their lifetimes is 37 times as much as a single battery electric vehicle.[/B] These inconvenient truths undermine the climate religion and government mandates.

End of excerpt

Volvo did a study where they looked at the number of months you'd need to drive one of their EV models for the carbon footprint of the EV not to exceed the carbon footprint of a conventional internal combustion auto. It was about 70 months, assuming you don't have to replace the batteries. Replace the batteries and it's longer than 70 months.

Anyway, I think Toyota is saying their hybrids have a smaller carbon footprint than the EV's! This would depend a lot of the source of the power used to charge the EV's though. If it's hydropower in Washington state, the EV's footprint would be a lot lower than if it's coal in West Virginia for example.

It sounds like the greenies are promoting policies that will actually increase carbon emissions, by insisting on EV's over hybrids!

Where have we seen this before? Well, I'd point out Biden's proposal to boost the maximum capital gains tax to 40.8%. That would be in a state with no income tax. In California you'd be looking at 54.1%. The Congressional Budget Office has traditionally assumed 28% is the revenue-maximizing capital gains rate. You raise the rate too high and people just don't sell assets, so they don't have to pay the tax. So you end up raising less revenues for the government with the higher tax!

This is all part of the Progressive Democrats "cut off your nose to spite your face" master plan.[/QUOTE]The carbon footprint to make one lithium battery for Tesla is 10 times more than what a SUV would produce in its lifetime. Really green!

[QUOTE=ChuchoLoco;2824097]

No place to run or hide from the madness of both parties.

[/QUOTE]That's the reality of voters continuining to maintain the status quo by voting along traditional 2 party lines.

The People's Party:

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgZtspUIxk4[/URL]

You know it makes sense.

[QUOTE=CaliGuy;2824111]I had several friends move to Wyoming to get out of this devastated state. No state income tax and they can start taking their [b]huge gains from the Trump presidency[/b] and screw California out of the tax. Seems to be the pattern for about 200,000 people who left California the last couple of years to live In Republican states. Less taxes. Less crime. Less wokeness. It seems like the smart thing to do.[/QUOTE]They must have been heavily invested in Pfizer, Moderna, payday loan shops, gun manufacturers and liquor sales.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2824083]All indications are the [I]virus[/I] originated in China, very likely in the labs from which Trump defunded and removed all of the monitors whose actual job it was to alert the responsible authorities to such earliest emerging cases in order to prevent, say it with me, [I]a Pandemic.[/I].

Trump did that contrary to all expert warnings not to do something so stupid and dangerous because his doing so was laying the basic groundwork for allowing, say it with me, [I]a Pandemic[/I] to develop.

Trump did that at least 5 months before those first cases emerged in China when even he knew that a mere 2-3 month heads up about that would have been plenty of time to have avoided "all these problems", otherwise known as, say it with me, [I]a Pandemic.[/I].

It seems you know about as much about the difference between a virus and a Pandemic as the difference between a Great Recession, Massive Jobs Destruction and Skyrocketing Unemployment Rates and a mild recession artificially induced by the Fed in order to cool down an overheated economy, more jobs created in 2 1/2 years than in any other President's 4 year term and an unemployment rate still well into Full Employment below 4%.

You might want to steer clear of any career in finance or science.[/QUOTE]I feel sorry for you. You were so blinded by your hate for Trump that you did not take advantage of the economic boom of his presidency. The smart people all bought into Trump economy and made millions. You on the other hand falsely ran it down and made nothing. Now the people that made millions are just making money on dividends and interest as Biden recession has stagnated the markets. You can preach all day how bad Trump economy was while we spend our millions. Good for you!

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2824262]They must have been heavily invested in Pfizer, Moderna, payday loan shops, gun manufacturers and liquor sales.[/QUOTE]Every sector in the markets boomed under Trump presidency. Yes we were dumb enough to believe in Trump economy and made millions. You on the other hand were smarter than most and stayed out of the Trump booming markets. And you made nothing.

[QUOTE=CaliGuy;2823644]History proves that when the economy is bad or in a recession the market is stagnant. [b]When the economy is booming like it was pre pandemic under Trump presidency it soars. Dow was at 19,804. 72 when Trump took office and was over 30,000 when he left office for over a 50% gain in 4 years.[/b] Quite an achievement with China trying to kill our economy by starting the virus. Trump policies actually drove the market to 36,000 3 months after his presidency ended before Biden executive orders took effect and killed the economy. Which is doubling in 4 years. Biden on the other hand in 2 1/2 years has managed to drive the markets down 10% and creating highest inflation ever and putting millions into poverty. I am in the financial wealth planning and I talk to investors daily. Obviously you are not a savvy investor or you would gladly go back to Trump economy. And yes Wall Street is always spooked by what the feds do and Biden's historical inflation is causing the feds to do radical things. If you remember under Trump president inflation was under control and feds lowered rates. Like it or not corporations and Americans did better under the Trump presidency. Now they are just trying to hold on until we are done with the worst presidency in the history of the USA.[/QUOTE]While financial media and some pundits like to cite the Dow because with just 30 stocks in that Index there is always some showbiz dramatic volatility to sweat over and report, savy investors know Wall Srreet's go-to Index to measure the condition of the broad USA Stock Market is the S&P 500 Index. It is simply a far more accurate and representative measure of the broad USA Stock Market.

Actually, it has always been a mystery to me why pro Trump wingers who claim to know something about the stock market even bother to cite starting points, ending points and that the numbers in the Dow show, glory of glory, during Trump's tenure as so-called president the Dow produced "over a 50% gain in four years"!

Really?

Guys, let me help you out with a tremendous favor for your cherry-picked Repub Trump talking point that you have been missing all this time: during Trump's so-called presidency, Wall Street's much preferred measure, the S&P 500 Index gained almost 70%! LOL. Yep. It has always been right there under your supposedly savy investor noses. LOL.

[URL]https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC/history/[/URL]

Now, bear in mind a few Fun Facts about that and others' records.

1. The reason the USA Stock Market did that well under Trump while even his pre Trump's Pandemic jobs creation and GDP growth were crap relative to the Trillions he charged American tax payers to get there is because his one and only economic / tax legislation did not produce notable jobs creation or economic expansion results. No, as expected and predicted by the Dems who did not vote for it, that money was spent buying back company stocks and skyrocketing corporate and CEO pay:

[B]Did Trumps tax cuts boost hiring? Most companies say no[/B]

[URL]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/did-trumps-tax-cuts-boost-hiring-most-companies-say-no[/URL]

[QUOTE]Instead companies put much of the money toward stock buybacks rather than investments. Buybacks hit a record $1 trillion in 2018, a nearly 50 percent increase from the year before.[/QUOTE]So, sorry farmers, the welfare checks Trump sent you was pretty much all of it for you. And sorry, job hunters, Trump's one and only legislative accomplishment was about flooding the stock market with hot windfall profits, not creating jobs.

Oh well.

Back to more S&P 500 Index Fun Facts:

2. The average annual gain in the USA Stock Market as measured by Wall Street's go-to preferred Index, see historical data table link above, for the most recent presidential tenures is:

GHW Bush, +13%.

Bill Clinton, +26.25%.

GW Bush, -10%.

Barack Obama, +22.75%.

Donald Trump, +17.3%.

3. As of this writing, the gain during Joe Biden's tenure at a bit less than 2 1/2 years in office is about +11%.

However, that is in the midst of all the lingering horrific worldwide economic, supply-chain and inflation fallout from Trump's policy of defunding and removing the Pandemic Prevention and Response Teams from known bad actor in these matters China at the worst possible time and then spending a critical year lying and doing everything a so-called world leader could do to create and develop a devastating Pandemic.

4. To further put the above number into perspective, after just a bit less than 2 years in office, on December 24,2018, Trump's gain in that Index was only 3. 5%. Yep, after almost 2 full years in office and with none of the Trump's Pandemic historically damaging headwinds working against him.

And that was a full year after his one and only economic / tax policy legislation was signed and passed.