Trump keeps winning: President takes victory lap after latest job numbers shatter expectations

It is just beginning. By the summer people will feel it!

Send a note to Pam Bondi, she could use another binder squirel.

She destroyed the democrats yesterday.

Did you hear them; "reclaiming my time"

Did you hear them; "reclaiming my time"

Also heard them trying to shout over her over and over.  

She destroyed the democrats yesterday.

She destroyed herself; you know it and are conciously following her high-heeled Doc Martens into the latest manifestation of the proverbial swamp. Had Ms-mendacity been a Biden appointee you and the MAGA circus would be demanding her head this morning.

She came across as a powerful woman who could relate to the American people leaving the hate filled democrats to screech "reclaiming my time." 

My favorite was when the rank ranking member Rankin said, "I told you what we wanted here" and she responded with "you don't tell me anything."

"I told you what we wanted here"

And what they didn't want to hear are the facts she was giving them.  They were pissed that she was not following their narrative leading to them to cry "reclaiming my time" and childishly trying to shout over her.

She destroyed the democrats yesterday.

She was an embarrassment.   She is now acting just like Trump.   She cannot handle direct scrutiny, so she deflects, delays, lies, and insults.

Do you think that is how high-ranking officials should operate?   No matter what this administration does, some will continue to blindly defend them.   Just bizarre.

Lets face it , most MAGAs are beyond being capable of embarrassment, Otherwise how could they get through the day? 

Pam Bondi is on the dark side, and there is no way back for her. 

Did you hear them; "reclaiming my time"

It's a 'popular' utterance used and abused by both sides. Your crocodile tears are wasted on my Willy Wonka Water Walkers.

"WOW! The Golden Age of America is upon us!!!"

Do you consider this to be the "Golden Age of America"? 

f no

There was only one Golden Age for America.

When was that?

right now, we can't even make the medal rounds

When was that?

If you attended Prager U it was twixt 1880 and 1900. Soon after it became known as the Gilded Age. What we are witnessing is its gilded return.

When was that?

When you were drooling over those great big, beautiful Buicks.

You have openly been drooling over going back to the 1950's for a couple years now, a period before civil rights, women's rights and LBGTQ rights, and when the John Birch Society was at its feeble peak and when the House UnAmerican Activities committee was on its high horse. 

You have openly been drooling over going back to the 1950's for a couple years now,

We can never go back John, but let us all admit that the 20 or so years following the end of WWII was America's high point as a civilization.


a period before civil rights, women's rights and LBGTQ rights, 

That period helped launch the Civil Rights movement and I would like to point out that in that era the black family was in far better condition than it is now. Get over the guilt and face the facts.

That period helped launch the Civil Rights movement and I would like to point out that in that era the black family was in far better condition than it is now. Get over the guilt and face the facts.

Are you saying that giving Blacks the same rights as everyone else was the cause of the decline of black families, because I'd like to point out that the same thing has been going on with all families. There was nothing wrong with civil rights. 

Some people think the southern plantation system was the peak of civilization. 

a period before civil rights, women's rights and LBGTQ rights, 

That period helped launch the Civil Rights movement 

The Civil Rights movement was launched in the face of 1950's white resistance, not because of it. 

[✘]

The Civil Rights movement was launched in the face of 1950's white resistance, not because of it

Correction: you mean many southern democrats were against it.

The democrat party has become far worse.

Are you saying that giving Blacks the same rights as everyone else was the cause of the decline of black families,

Clearly not. LBJ's welfare is what destroyed black families. It was a key part of the Moynihan Report. You remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan, right?  He was a democrat and an intellectual. (I believe Trump once called him an "intellectual yo-yo.") Prior to welfare the black family was much more stable than white families.

I also want to point out something that the great economist Milton Friedman once pointed out:

"In 1956, the minimum wage in the United States rose from 75 cents to $1. Immediately before the sharp rise in the minimum wage, the unemployment rate in the U.S. male group was almost the same, regardless of race, at around 8%. After the minimum wage soared, the unemployment rate of the black group jumped to 20-25%."

  "The minimum wage system is the worst anti-Black system." Milton Friedman, an American liberal econo.. - MK

So, it is clear to see what hurt black families.


Now if I may, I have a question for you: What is the first thing you think of when you think of the post WWII period?

Easy, racism, sexism, homophobia and irrational fears. The McCarthy Era...

The question was for the other New Yorker,[✘]

That is not what you said in the comment that I am referring to. What did civil rights have to do with the black families?

As for the war on poverty, it actually helped more white families than black. Being poor is not such a great way to keep a family together.

Now if I may, I have a question for you: What is the first thing you think of when you think of the post WWII period?

Levittown and the baby boom. 

I also want to point out something that the great economist Milton Friedman once pointed out: "In 1956, the minimum wage in the United States rose from 75 cents to $1. Immediately before the sharp rise in the minimum wage, the unemployment rate in the U.S. male group was almost the same, regardless of race, at around 8%. After the minimum wage soared, the unemployment rate of the black group jumped to 20-25%."   "The minimum wage system is the worst anti-Black system." Milton Friedman, an American liberal econo.. - MK So, it is clear to see what hurt black families.

Yep, clear as mud.

Recently the same economist wrote that the immigrants both legal and illegal prop up the economy and reduce the national debt by 1.7 trillion annually; an opinion shared by the very conservative CATO Institute.

He was lambasted by conservatives on this site.  So which Milton do you support?

You aren't a historian and you simply argue with whatever support bs you can find on the internet, even if it's a 1965 report by Moynihan a year after Civil Rights Act.

Sounds like there was no fact involved just the conservative views of a Senator frpm 61 years ago.

Let's be clear what the discussion here signifies. 

Radical reactionary propagandists assert that black families were better off in the 1950s, better off under Jim Crow and segregation when they were often required to use separate facilities, even separate drinking fountains, better off when they lived under restrictive housing covenants, etc.  Hardly "America's high point as a civilization".  Not even remotely.

The data shows that "(s)ignificantly more Black people lived below the poverty line in the 1950s compared to now.  In 1959 the Black poverty rate was approximately 55%, a figure that dropped to roughly 17-20% by the early 2020s." (AI)

inequality

census

The goal of the radical reactionary propagandists is the end of America's 250 year experiment in democracy in favor of a white oligarchic elite.

What did civil rights have to do with the black families?

That is such an odd question. Civil Rights is guaranteed to every American under the Constitution. My comments were these:

A) black families were in better shape during that period than they are today.

B) There was a spirit of goodwill in the US during those post war years that enabled the Civil Rights movement which followed.

Both of those comments were in response to JR who always automatically connects the segregation going on in the south at that time to that era which he doesn't like to acknowledge was far better than the society we exist in today.


As for the war on poverty, it actually helped more white families than black. Being poor is not such a great way to keep a family together.

It didn't help anyone. In the case of the black family, it substituted the government for a husband & father.


Levittown and the baby boom.

Very good answer. And I think of the great generation who survived the depression & WWII coming home to a golden age of prosperity, home ownership a very affordable car (first time for many) and yes, a great time to have kids.  It seems that JR only manages to think of the segregated south.

Levittown and the baby boom.

I think what we are finding out is that indoctrinated lefties are always Trying to use race to smear everyone they hate.

The data:

The Black Family in 1965 and Today

As somebody famous recently said: "When did I become the topic of the conversation?"

A) black families were in better shape during that period than they are today. B) There was a spirit of goodwill in the US during those post war years that enabled the Civil Rights movement which followed.Both of those comments were in response to JR who always automatically connects the segregation going on in the south at that time to that era which he doesn't like to acknowledge was far better than the society we exist in today.

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

In the 1950's and early 60's there were no laws that guaranteed civil rights , no laws that guaranteed the right to vote , and no laws that guaranteed non discrimination in housing. In some states there were white drinking fountains and colored drinking fountains, blacks were largely absent from movie casts and almost completely absent from television casts. Blacks rarely appeared in commercials.  Blacks were largely kept out of police force and fire departments. You think it was better for them because they weren't annoying you until the protests started. 

connects the segregation going on in the south at that time to that era which he doesn't like to acknowledge was far better than the society we exist in today.

It takes balls to say the segregated south was a better society than what we have today, but it is nonetheless despicable. 

In the 1950's and early 60's there were no laws that guaranteed civil rights , no laws that guaranteed the right to vote , and no laws that guaranteed non discrimination in housing. In some states there were white drinking fountains and colored drinking fountains, blacks were largely absent from movie casts and almost completely absent from television casts.

Not true. The problem was that southern democrats refused to recognize federal law, just as Gov Walz and Mayor Frey do today. And as I told you it was the sprit of good will in the nation during that era that led to the Civil Rights movement. Example:

"On May 17, 1954 , U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown  v.  Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas . State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. This historic decision marked the end of the "separate but equal" precedent set by the Supreme Court nearly 60 years earlier in  Plessy  v.  Ferguson  and served as a catalyst for the expanding civil rights movement during the decade of the 1950s."

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) | National Archives

And as the south resisted the rights that blacks should have been given President Eisenhower sent in the National Guard as he did in 1957.


  You think it was better for them because they weren't annoying you until the protests started. 

The only thing that annoys me is radical lefties who are indoctrinated with Marxist ideology.


Notice the answer that Perrie gave me: When she recalled that era she thought of Levittown and the baby boom. Those are things she recalled from her life's experience. I recalled the older generation that suffered through both the great depression and WWII finally finding themselves in a very affluent era for the middle class. It spoiled my generation. And what do you think of: "the plight of black people."

It's a good thing I never said it.

Try to think about the rest of the country for a change.

I quoted you

I think what we are finding out is that indoctrinated lefties are always Trying to use race to smear everyone they hate.

It is astounding to realize that implicit in your comments is your apparent belief that segregation and Jim Crow were good for Black families and that a discussion of historical facts is racial hatred.  

What we know is that indoctrinated reactionaries always distort the truth to promote their right wing extremist agenda and to smear everyone they hate.

Civil Rights, in theory, is guaranteed to every American under the Constitution, but in reality, it was not given. This is clearly shown with what happened with the rules that blacks had to sit at the back of the bus, making them second-class citizens. This is a fact.

Civil rights did not affect black families. "The War On Poverty" affected all poor families, black and white and created what is called the " poverty paradox." While all poor families, black and white, had better overall economic conditions, families became more fragile.  

magnoliatribune

The problem was that southern democrats refused to recognize federal law,

One of the things that annoys me is that those unabashed conservatives would be your besties today.

The only thing that annoys me is radical lefties who are indoctrinated with Marxist ideology.

The other annoying thing is a lack of historical knowledge in context by the radical right.

In the case of the black family, it substituted the government for a husband & father.

You keep inanely repeating this as if there's something meaningful to it.  Why don't you ask some black people?

Civil Rights, in theory, is guaranteed to every American under the Constitution, but in reality, it was not given. This is clearly shown with what happened with the rules that blacks had to sit at the back of the bus, making them second-class citizens. This is a fact.

And again, we agree.


Civil rights did not affect black families. "The War On Poverty" affected all poor families, black and white and created what is called the " poverty paradox." While all poor families, black and white, had better overall economic conditions, families became more fragile.  


Which was exactly what I was saying. You should have posted that to the three progressives that think I said the stability of the black family was via discrimination.

I know you may hate to admit it, but you made my main point when you gave me an honest answer to my question. When those of us who were alive back then, think back to the postwar period we recall the things that touched our lives. You mentioned Levittown which was a planned development first in New York then repeated in other places to provide affordable housing with more pleasant surroundings. The baby boom, which represented our generation was the direct result of how easy it was to raise a family at that time. I mentioned the prosperity of that time.

What type of human being would say that period instantly reminds them of Jim Crow.


Thanks for agreeing with me on all points.

It is astounding to realize that implicit in your comments is your apparent belief that segregation and Jim Crow were good for Black families

What is astounding is that anyone could construe what I said about the stability of the black family was a result of discrimination. But then again ...

Like Jussie Smollett would.

One of the things that annoys me is that those unabashed conservatives would be your besties today.

They were democrats just like you.


The other annoying thing is a lack of historical knowledge in context by the radical right.

That's called taunting.


You keep inanely repeating this as if there's something meaningful to it.

Let me break it down for you: LBJ made it easier for a black family struggling to make ends meet by having the man abandon them and the woman apply for assistance. That is what the Moynihan Report basically said. 

They were democrats just like you.

They were conservatives with prejudices, opinions and biases, just like many of our members.

That's called  taunting.

Not unless your name is "radical right".

That is what the Moynihan Report basically said. 

And this conservative Democrat was what, such a genius that he discovered the future within just a few months of the Civil Rights Act?

The Civil Rights Act would never have passed if it didn't apply to all the poor including the white coal miners along the Appalachians.  Guess what, Moynihan was prejudiced, a victim of confirmation bias because of his own racist beliefs. A product of his time.

Moynihan did make a few brief comments. He joined Nixon in depicting African leaders as “children.” Later in the conversation, he agreed with Nixon that black people are at an intellectual disadvantage “when you get to some of the more, shall we say, some of the more profound, rigid disciplines, basically,” as Nixon put it. When asked about this conversation years later, Moynihan claimed that he could not recall it.

What Did Daniel Patrick Moynihan Actually Think About Race? Historians Discuss in the Atlantic — History News Network

What is astounding is that anyone could construe what I said about the stability of the black family was a result of discrimination.

Where did I, or anyone, say that?  I can't imagine that even you would think the stability of the black family was a result of discrimination.  I would assume you realize that discrimination was horrific for black families.  Is my assumption incorrect?  Possibly so, since you apparently believe that the era of discrimination, Jim Crow and significant black poverty was, somehow, America's golden age when black families were better off than they are today.  A completely ahistorical, counter-factual and, frankly, ridiculous assertion by you, of course. 

I know you may hate to admit it, but you made my main point when you gave me an honest answer to my question.

Hardly. My point is that an odd paradox arose. For ANY family that fell below the poverty line, "the War on Poverty" helped them get out of poverty, but also caused a breakdown of the family. There is no good answer for this. As a society, we are judged by how we treat our least fortunate people, and so helping the poor is the right thing to do. To say that helping the poor breaks up families is correlation, not causation, since at the same time, the divorce rate was also going up across the board. It could have been just a social change.

So, no, we were not agreeing. 

indoctrinated lefties are always Trying to use race to smear everyone they hate.

Sure, the radicalized rightists would never do that /eye roll/

My point is that an odd paradox arose. For ANY family that fell below the poverty line, "the War on Poverty" helped them get out of poverty, but also caused a breakdown of the family. There is no good answer for this. As a society, we are judged by how we treat our least fortunate people, and so helping the poor is the right thing to do. To say that helping the poor breaks up families is correlation, not causation, since at the same time, the divorce rate was also going up across the board. It could have been just a social change.

I know we do have philosophical differences. I would never agree that as long as someone had good intentions the consequences should be forgiven. LBJ should have thought about the possibility of black men abandoning their families or what boys without a father would become or generations of dependency, just like JFK should have thought about what Americans would face if there were no more mental institutions, just like Ronald Reagan should have thought about non-citizens abusing an emergency room which is forced to treat everyone. A society can help the poor using common sense. The Welfare system created by LBJ was flawed because it lacked an incentive to go find a job. It took Bill Clinton to reform that system, but by then it was too late. 


So, no, we were not agreeing. 

You did make my points for me as far as the above discussion went. 

Great Society programs basically cut the US poverty rate in half. 

legalclarity

The Great Society programs were a series of domestic initiatives launched in the United States during the 1960s. President Lyndon B. Johnson articulated this vision in 1964, aiming to address significant social, economic, and racial challenges facing the nation. These programs sought to expand social welfare and improve living standards for many Americans. The Great Society represented a substantial expansion of the federal government’s role in social policy, building upon earlier frameworks like the New Deal.

Addressing Poverty in America

Before the Great Society, the United States experienced a period of economic growth following World War II, yet significant disparities persisted. Millions of Americans, particularly in rural areas, inner cities, and among racial minorities, lived below the poverty line. In 1960, approximately 22 percent of the nation’s families lived in poverty. This era saw a growing recognition that poverty was not merely an individual failing but a systemic issue requiring government intervention. The Great Society believed federal action could create opportunities and improve the quality of life for disadvantaged citizens.

Key Anti-Poverty Initiatives

The Great Society enacted several landmark programs directly targeting poverty. The Food Stamp Act of 1964 aimed to strengthen the agricultural economy and improve nutrition among low-income households by providing food assistance. This program allowed eligible households to receive coupons to purchase food from approved retail stores.

The Social Security Act Amendments of 1965 introduced Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare established a federal health insurance program primarily for individuals aged 65 and older, regardless of income. Medicaid, a joint state-federal program, was designed to provide healthcare to low-income individuals, including those who were blind or disabled.

The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 was another central piece of legislation in the War on Poverty. This act created the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to oversee various anti-poverty initiatives. Under the OEO, Project Head Start was launched in 1965. Head Start was designed to provide comprehensive early childhood education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to preschool children from low-income families. Other programs under the Economic Opportunity Act included the Job Corps, which offered education and job training for at-risk youth, and Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), a domestic service program.

The Impact on Poverty Rates

The Great Society programs had a measurable effect on poverty rates during their initial implementation. The national poverty rate, which stood at 19 percent in 1964 when the War on Poverty was announced, saw a significant decline. By 1973, the official poverty rate had fallen to a low of 11.1 percent. Poverty among African Americans also experienced a notable decrease, falling from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968. The federal government’s spending on anti-poverty efforts increased considerably, reaching approximately $4,000 per poor family of four by 1968, four times the amount spent in 1961.

Broader Societal Changes

Beyond statistical changes in poverty rates, the Great Society programs led to immediate, qualitative shifts in access and opportunity for many Americans. The introduction of Medicare and Medicaid significantly improved access to healthcare for the elderly and low-income populations. Before these programs, 20 percent of the poor had never been examined by a physician, a figure that dropped to 8 percent by the end of Johnson’s presidency. Infant mortality among the poor also saw a one-third reduction in the decade following 1965 due to expanded medical and nutritional programs.

Educational opportunities expanded through initiatives like Head Start, which provided early childhood development services to disadvantaged children. This program aimed to prepare children from low-income families for school success by addressing their emotional, social, health, and nutritional needs. Additionally, the Food Stamp Act enhanced nutritional support for low-income families, contributing to improved food security.

At the end of your "golden era", 1960, the poverty rate was 22% , AND there were no Civil Rights Act, or Voting Rights Act, or Medicaid and Medicare, nor women's lib. 

The happiest people were those with good UNION jobs .

When people say "lets go back to the 50's" they are not saying something good for everyone. 

"The federal government operates nearly 100 interrelated welfare programs,  spread across  14 government departments and agencies, and nine budget functions. 

Federal welfare spending costs taxpayers  more than $1 trillion each year . Over the next decade, the federal government is projected to spend more than $12 trillion on welfare programs. This sum of aggregate spending doesn’t include the  billions of dollars in state government contributions  to federal welfare programs.


Despite this massive government investment, as of 2022,  37.9 million people  were living in poverty . Welfare enrollment in 2022 was even higher in many programs than at the height of the pandemic and government lockdowns in 2020. As enrollment has grown, welfare spending has skyrocketed. Outlays for welfare programs have grown significantly even in inflation adjusted terms."

60-Year Anniversary of the War on Poverty - Are We Winning or Losing? | The U.S. House Committee on the Budget - House Budget Committee

We can't go back.

We will never have it so good again.

We can't go back.

We will never have it so good again.

Said every 65+ year old since the beginning of time.

11.1% is the number we are stuck on. Still 36 million people in poverty.

Funny thing is that only 19.5% are described as black families which in GOP speak should be a success story for the other 80.5% black families. 

7 million black "families/people" under the poverty line that some of us are going to dwell on to infinity and beyond...

In spite of the 29 million whiter people under the poverty line?

The same myopic people bitch about "non citizen" welfare fraud of 1.3 billion when the total annual welfare fraud totals $247Billion.

Would it not make sense to attack the low hanging fruit of the larger number?

Are certain people trying to or happy to be obtuse?

Try telling that to young couples who are both working and can't afford a house.

Every civilization in history had a high point and a collapse.


Here is a better mantra for you:

"I'm so sorry. We all sense we are in the middle of something very big, a kind of hinge moment, I think. I have been thinking a lot -- about it a lot, as you have. And I have a feeling that people are thinking that they don't really like all that they have seen of the 21st century, and they had a sense that Mr. Trump didn't like it either. That's why they elected him twice. And more than half the country, I think, is just in a major pushback against the establishment ." ....Peggy Noonan

Peggy Noonan: People Are Not Liking All They've Seen In The 21st Century, That's Why They Elected Trump Twice | Video | RealClearPolitics

Vic,

Try telling that to young couples who are both working and can't afford a house.

Yes, it's tough, but that has fault in both parties. It didn't just happen. And when I asked AI this is what it said:

• Chronic Housing Shortage:   The U.S. faces a shortage of roughly 1.5 million housing units. Construction has not kept pace with population growth, a trend that began after the 2008 financial crisis.
• The "Lock-In" Effect:   Many current homeowners secured mortgage rates below 3% or 4% during 2020-2021. Selling their home means buying a new one at a much higher rate, discouraging them from moving and shrinking available inventory.
• High Demand vs. Low Supply:   Strong demand from millennials and Gen Z, coupled with pandemic-era desire for more space, has created intense competition for the few available homes.
• Rising Construction Costs:   Increased costs for labor and materials, along with restrictive zoning regulations that limit high-density building, make new construction expensive.
• Investor Competition:   Institutional investors and corporate buyers have purchased a significant number of single-family homes, taking inventory off the market for average homebuyers.
• finance.yahoo
• globalrealassets.georgetown .

I know Peggy very well, and she is a conservative with a definite narrative. Of course, she would say that Dems have lost their reputation with regular Americans. Yet, polls say that Trump is the lowest-ranked president in his first year, now twice in a row. I honestly don't think that either party represents the regular American. Both parties have lost their center.

And when I asked AI this is what it said:

That is so nice that AI listed that. What needs to be added was the democrat/government idea of putting poor people in homes and forcing lenders to modify the traditional lending rates (which caused the housing crisis of 2008). Those prices never came down. We should have let the housing market crash.
 
AI listed investor competition and you do know that Trump is going to prohibit that.

All that being said, what I said was true: It was much better for young couples in the post war period than now. There is no denying that.


I know Peggy very well, and she is a conservative with a definite narrative.

I read her Columns all the time and I think she is all over the place.


 I honestly don't think that either party represents the regular American.

The regular American?  I fear that those in the middle are the ones telling democrats: "Ok I'll vote for you, just make it all go away."  They are only an inch better than the progressives.

That is so nice that AI listed that. What needs to be added was the democrat/government idea of putting poor people in homes and forcing lenders to modify the traditional lending rates (which caused the housing crisis of 2008). Those prices never came down. We should have let the housing market crash.

I knew you were going to go there, but it didn't, since it has no relevance.  But ponder this. The average home price after the subprime crash caused house values to go down, not up. And that was no small drop, but a 30% drop. That would not explain our current high prices. So the AI was not wrong.

Furthermore, Fox Business News agrees:

foxbusiness

And no one is denying it was better back post-war, but I could buy my first home. Things got out of hand due to other economic forces.

I read her Columns all the time and I think she is all over the place. I watch her all the time and she seems pretty consistant. 

Define that, please.

The regular American?  I fear that those in the middle are the ones telling democrats: "Ok I'll vote for you, just make it all go away."  They are only an inch better than the progressives.

No, they are the ones in the center that are saying, give us a sensible leader, and we'll vote for them. What is the "it" in " make just make it all go away?" And thanks for trying to be insulting. I wouldn't consider myself a progressive, but I can read between the lines, too.

And thanks for trying to be insulting.

I didn't. You shouldn't have taken it that way. Since I have been a member here, I have never defined your political persuasion. You say you are and Independent and I have never contested that.

When I say that people (some people) in the middle are voting a certain way for a reason it does not in any way imply that you are one of them. The fact is that many people just don't want to hear the drama every night on the news. The left controls most of the media and when the democrats are in power, the media tones it down quite a bit.


Define that, please.

One day she posts a column that seems very Liberal the next day she sounds Conservatives and sometimes she sounds like someone observing US politics from far away. One of her best friends is Cokie Roberts. I saw them do an interview together both talking of their mutual friendship. Then they spoke of national events with Roberts continually slamming Trump and Noonan speaking of unrelated subjects. 


And no one is denying it was better back post-war,

In that case I think we reached a conclusion.

One day she posts a column that seems very Liberal the next day she sounds Conservatives and sometimes she sounds like someone observing US politics from far away. One of her best friends is Cokie Roberts. I saw them do an interview together both talking of their mutual friendship. Then they spoke of national events with Roberts continually slamming Trump and Noonan speaking of unrelated subjects. 

I have never heard her sound liberal. She sounds to me like an old school Republican. I really miss those. And as for her hanging out with Cokie Roberts, you must have missed that out; Scalia and Ginsburg were besties. There was a time when people who didn't agree politically could still be friends with each other

And no one is denying it was better back post-war,

Vic don't do that! Don't take a sentence I wrote out of context. I was talking about the housing market, not everything post war.

Peggy Noonan blows in the wind.  The kindest thing I can say about her quote about Americans electing Trump twice (as if that were a good thing) is that she made that comment between the election and Trumps second inauguration. I hope she has learned her lesson once and for all after 2025.  

I posted some material on another article today that lists all the conspiracies Trump has either started , promoted, or believed (it is dozens and dozens).   It is bizarre beyond words that this man is president of the United States and people like Peggy Noonan need to get that through their heads. 

the democrat/government idea of putting poor people in homes and forcing lenders to modify the traditional lending rates (which caused the housing crisis of 2008).

you are 16% correct.

=============================================================

copilot.microsoft

🏠 Core Causes of the 2008 Housing Crisis

1. Subprime Mortgages

Lenders increasingly issued mortgages to borrowers with poor credit histories—loans that carried high risk of default. As these borrowers began missing payments in 2007, the system started to unravel.

2. Predatory and Easy Lending Practices

Banks and mortgage brokers aggressively pushed risky loans, often with misleading terms, because they could quickly sell them off to investors. This loose credit environment fueled a massive housing bubble.

3. Securitization of Mortgages

Financial institutions bundled mortgages—including risky subprime loans—into complex financial products like mortgage‑backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). When homeowners defaulted, these “toxic assets” collapsed in value and spread losses across the global financial system.

4. Housing Bubble and Rampant Speculation

Years of rising home prices created a speculative frenzy. Investors and homeowners assumed prices would keep climbing, which encouraged overbuilding, overborrowing, and overconfidence. When prices fell nationwide, the bubble burst.

5. Financial System Vulnerabilities

Banks were deeply exposed to the housing market through their investments in mortgage‑linked securities. When the housing market collapsed, these institutions faced catastrophic losses, triggering a broader financial crisis.

6. Complex Financial Products and Poor Risk Management

Instruments like CDOs amplified the damage. Many institutions underestimated the risk embedded in these products, and rating agencies often gave them overly optimistic ratings. When defaults surged, the entire structure fell apart.

I was talking about the housing market, not everything post war.

Ok, I'll take that much. It is good enough for me.

Thank you for the conversation.

 It is bizarre beyond words that this man is president of the United States

All people need to do to understand why he was elected at least twice is to read NT.

"There really isn’t any question of which approach is factually correct: right on the front page of the Times  edition of December 21 is a chart that shows the growth of home ownership in the United States since 1990. In 1993 it was 63 percent; by the end of the Clinton administration it was 68 percent. The growth in the Bush administration was about 1 percent. The  Times  itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers–a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks. Can there really be a question, other than in the fevered imagination of the  Times , where the push to reduce lending standards and boost home ownership came from?

The fact is that neither political party, and no administration, is blameless; the honest answer, as outlined below, is that government policy over many years caused this problem. The regulators, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, were the enforcers of the reduced lending standards that were essential to the growth in home ownership and the housing bubble.

        THERE ARE TWO KEY EXAMPLES of this misguided government policy. One is the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The other is the affordable housing “mission” that the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were charged with fulfilling.

As originally enacted in 1977, the CRA vaguely mandated regulators to consider whether an insured bank was serving the needs of the “whole” community. For 16 years, the act was invoked rather infrequently, but 1993 marked a decisive turn in its enforcement. What changed? Substantial media and political attention was showered upon a 1992 Boston Federal Reserve Bank study of discrimination in home mortgage lending. This study concluded that, while there was no overt discrimination in banks’ allocation of mortgage funds, loan officers gave whites preferential treatment. The methodology of the study has since been questioned, but at the time it was highly influential with regulators and members of the incoming Clinton administration; in 1993, bank regulators initiated a major effort to reform the CRA regulations.

In 1995, the regulators created new rules that sought to establish objective criteria for determining whether a bank was meeting CRA standards. Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified buyers wasn’t enough. Banks now had to show that they had actually made a requisite number of loans to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers. The new regulations also required the use of “innovative or flexible” lending practices to address credit needs of LMI borrowers and neighborhoods. Thus, a law that was originally intended to encourage banks to use safe and sound practices in lending now required them to be “innovative” and “flexible.” In other words, it called for the relaxation of lending standards, and it was the bank regulators who were expected to enforce these relaxed standards.

The effort to reduce mortgage lending standards was led by the Department of Housing and Urban Development through the 1994 National Homeownership Strategy, published at the request of President Clinton. Among other things, it called for “financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, to help homeowners that lack cash to buy a home or to make the payments.” Once the standards were relaxed for low-income borrowers, it would seem impossible to deny these benefits to the prime market. Indeed, bank regulators, who were in charge of enforcing CRA standards, could hardly disapprove of similar loans made to better-qualified borrowers."

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics

It is just beginning. By the summer people will feel it!

They're already beginning to feel it. (That's one of the main reasons Trump is doing so poorly in the polls )

Yes, "they" being working people. And "they" will be getting plenty of good news by June.

It is just beginning. By the summer people will feel it!

I certainly hope so.  But I'm not seeing what warrants jubilation at this time.  The measures of economic performance are confused which provides a hint that the economy is restructuring itself.  Of course, the elephant hiding in the corner is that the Trump administration may be diddling with the data.  

Personally, I would welcome a restructuring to an industrial economy.  But Trump will need to actively adjust policy priorities before an industrial restructuring can come to fruition.  Now is not the time for another TACO.

I certainly hope so.

Very good. We should all want what is best for the country.


The measures of economic performance are confused which provides a hint that the economy is restructuring itself.  

It all begins with that big, beautiful deal and Americans getting their tax returns.


Of course, the elephant hiding in the corner is that the Trump administration may be diddling with the data. 

I haven't seen them do it yet, though we all know the Biden administration got a lot of help in that regard.


Personally, I would welcome a restructuring to an industrial economy.  

Glad to hear it. Working people have suffered for a long time.


But Trump will need to actively adjust policy priorities before an industrial restructuring can come to fruition. 

You mean like bringing back shipbuilding. Got it!

It all begins with that big, beautiful deal and Americans getting their tax returns.

Nope, I don't see that having much influence since it's a one time deal.  I see the economy shifting away from productivity as a measure of economic health.  It appears income will be far more important than profit.  If income falters, then the market economy collapses.

Communism for oligarchs won't bring forth a broad prosperity.  

You mean like bringing back shipbuilding. Got it!

Shipbuilding would be good but I do not understand why the country needs commercial ships to build resilience and self-sufficiency.  Commercial ships only allows finance to push the county back into the import pit.  I'd be more impressed if shoe factories were coming back.

Artificial intelligence and robotics will do away with large corporations.  Productivity at large scale will stagnate with the advent of no-cost mechanical labor.  And the lack of income will stifle profit growth.  That lack of income will also cause risk markets to stall.  The current government policies regulating productivity, profit, and credit will be all dressed up with no where to go.

Government jobs going down, private employment up.

Good stuff. 

With over a million immigrant jobs gone, job growth was still positive. That's very good news for American workers, which I know is not something Democrats care about anymore. 

It's really a nightmare for democrats, fewer government and immigrant jobs with all the gains in the private sector.

More confirmation bias:

The remedy for this is critical thinking.   Here are BLS job growth stats :

Job growth for the last year looks impressive with this last spike when we look real close at dynamics between two low numbers:

Job growth since 2000 better shows what is going on in macro economic terms:

Job growth has been generally steady except for major economic factors (great recession and COVID) across every PotUS in this period (Bush onward).    The 2025 growth in perspective of the past 25 years shows that it is basically flat.

So if you are going to give Trump credit for a good month, then you must blame him for the bad months.   If you play the game that the PotUS is the guy who controls jobs, then looking at a single month in isolation is cherry-picking (one of the tools of confirmation bias).

With that in mind, now look at the job growth for the past 5 years as the nation recovered from the COVID economic punch.   Jobs grew (in recovery mode) and then basically flat-lined.

Either a PotUS has no real control over jobs or both Biden and Trump have had essentially no positive impact (once jobs recovered from COVID).

I appreciate how excruciatingly difficult it must be to honestly make Trump look good, but no matter what, he is an incompetent asshole who is unfit for any public office.

no matter what, he is an incompetent asshole who is unfit for any public office.

yea, but he is really good at gettin peep holes to B leave his bullShip asz it sales over logic and for, no good reason

no matter what, he is an incompetent asshole who is unfit for any public office.

yea, but he is really good at gettin peep holes to B leave his bullShip asz it sales over logic and for, no good reason

Yup.

I appreciate how excruciatingly difficult it must be to honestly make Trump look good

My own personal experience has shown me some prefer to live in the echo chamber bubble that bathes them in a surreal reality where as they believe only what they hear from certain pols, pundits, and social purveyors of purely preposterous propaganda that persons have perhaps permitted to be as in they have so much invested in their Trump and the Republican Party, that their initial wager has now parlayed into a particularly large pot, that to they, is too much to part width, as so many times the heights of hysterical bets hedged, have apparently pledged, they prefer to remain inn their bubbles, as their reality is scubbled, as they ride those scrubbled bubbles ;right; down the drain to avoid facing more troubles, and in a case i'm close too, with watt they are forced to hear and endure, due to a sole meant to be pure, I must give them a pass, as their profession does cause them to hear many a patience confession, and have to deal with realities most could never phantom, for they would be haunted by what happens to so many a poor soul only made worse, by Trump the ultimate A whole , and an A Whole lott more. 

I appreciate how excruciatingly difficult

Actually, it is going to be easy and fun as part of my role here in the next 5 months.

... my role here

Can't wait, I have my fave Sondheim song qued up.

Oh, I thought it was "Somewhere."

What do you expect to magically happen over the next 5 months?

What do you expect to magically happen over the next 5 months?

Pam Bondi on steroids. 

American citizens being stripped of their constitutional right to vote by any means imaginable.

my role here

All those seeds that Trump planted will bloom.

Do you genuinely believe that Trump is competent??    Do you believe he is out to do good for the nation and its people rather than do what pleases him personally?

Do you genuinely believe that Trump is competent??

Yes, I do.


 Do you believe he is out to do good for the nation and its people rather than do what pleases him personally?

100%.

So you ignore the fact that he:

• tried to steal the 2020 election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement
• surrounded himself with incompetent sycophants
• tried to keep classified documents and obstructed their safe return for months
• engaged in true lawfare, blatantly so, directing the AG (never should be done) to go after select political opponents (e.g. Comey, James, Cook, ...)
• coerced private businesses (e.g. Perkins Coie LLP) and universities (e.g. Harvard) with threats of denying federal business opportunities/funding
• overstepped authority and effectively killed USAID, which was congressionally approved, and abruptly, irresponsibly cut life-critical funding worldwide
• removed watch dogs (e.g. inspectors general, FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter,...) and fired DoJ attorneys, et.al. who worked on his indictments
• unilaterally destroyed the East Wing
• accepts outrageously expensive gifts such as the Qatar jet (which will now cost at least $400 million in taxpayer dollars to prepare)
• renamed the Kennedy center to arrogantly put his own name as top billing
• abused the use of the National guard to deploy to cities as a political show
• more than doubled ICE personnel with demonstrably poorly vetted, poorly trained individuals, and then unleashed them en masse into communities
• abuse of tariff power which pointlessly damaged USA reputation worldwide and triggered trading partners to strategically establish trade alternatives other than the USA
• pullback from WHO, UN, UNFCCC, etc. reducing the USA's international leadership
• anti climate change initiatives (as if trying to further damage the environment)
• blatant attempt to steal the 2026 midterms by coercing states to gerrymander for political (not census) reasons
• failed miserably on his campaign promise to lower prices
• failed miserably on his campaign promise to end the Ukraine war
• is a national embarrassment given he is the voice, face, and hand of the USA, yet publicly trolls our allies (in particular, Canada) and whines about not being awarded the Peace prize and then vindictively threatens not to be motivated for peace
• has substantially increased both deficit spending and the national debt (in direct opposition of his promises)

Trump does not view the presidency as a solemn duty but rather as a license to do whatever pleases him personally.

This, Vic, should be obvious to anyone.   So since when does a patriot (especially traditionalist, conservative) approve of a PotUS abusing the powers and influence of his office for personal gain?

tried to steal the 2020 election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitemen t

You have failed to prove that and even the illegitimate Jack Smith refused to go there.

• surrounded himself with incompetent sycophants
  
  That is beyond a generalization. Some are exceptional like the Secretary of State and the VP. Others are very competent such as Tom Homan who has served many Presidents and there are those who may have been less effective such as Pam Bondi.
  
  
  
  
• tried to keep classified documents and obstructed their safe return for months
  
  As did Joe Biden. Biden got a pass because they said he was basically senile. A  report found evidence that Biden "wilfully retained and disclosed classified materials" but no criminal charges are warranted. Yet Trump who had a more valid claim came under investigation via Biden's DOJ.
  
  
  
  
• engaged in true lawfare, blatantly so, directing the AG (never should be done) to go after select political opponents (e.g. Comey, James, Cook, ...)
  
  They helped perpetuate a hoax against Trump at the request of then president Obama.
  
  
  
  
• coerced private businesses (e.g. Perkins Coie LLP) and universities (e.g. Harvard) with threats of denying federal business opportunities/funding
  
  All of which had created hoaxes and discriminated against students and Jews.
  
  
  
  
• overstepped authority and effectively killed USAID, which was congressionally approved, and abruptly , irresponsibly cut life-critical funding worldwi
  

   "Far too often over the decades, efforts to promote development gave way to the geopolitical ambitions of both the donor and the recipient governments, often to the detriment of the people who were supposed to be helped. Pots of USAID money often supported the personal projects of ambassadors and politicians for their own political purposes. 

  Even when aid was designed to raise people’s standard of living, it didn’t always work. USAID’s bureaucratic structures were notoriously cumbersome and needed revision.'
  
  The Birth and Death of USAID | Origins
  
  It needed to go. Congress may have created it but nobody controlled it.
  
  
  
  

  • removed watch dogs (e.g. inspectors general, FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter,...) and fired DoJ attorneys, et.al. who worked on his indictments
    
    Those who don't have their faith in the policy should be fired
    
    
    
    
  • unilaterally destroyed the East Wing
    
    He didn't need permission to do that. Now we will have a reasonable space to serve large groups.
    
    
    
    
  • accepts outrageously expensive gifts such as the Qatar jet (which will now cost at least $400 million in taxpayer dollars to prepare)
    
    The jet is not a personal gift. It remains for his successor.
    
    
    
    
  • renamed the Kennedy center to arrogantly put his own name as top billing
    
    Not a good idea, but hardly important.
    
    
    
    
  • abused the use of the National guard to deploy to cities as a political show
    
    He used they in the same way as Eisenhower & Kennedy did to enforce federal law and protect federal employees & property. 
    
    
    
    
  • more than doubled ICE personnel with demonstrably poorly vetted, poorly trained individuals, and then unleashed them en masse into communities
    
    Those weren't communities. They are resistance centers. They were firing on Ft Sumter again.
    
    
    
    
  • abuse of tariff power which pointlessly damaged USA reputation worldwide and triggered trading partners to strategically establish trade alternatives other than the USA
    
    The SCOTUS will decide that.
    
    
    
    
  • pullback from WHO, UN, UNFCCC, etc. reducing the USA's international leadership
    
    The WHO was a rogue organization and the UN had become anti-Israel & anti-west.  They all failed their mission.
    
    
    
    
  • anti climate change initiatives (as if  trying  to further damage the environment)
    
    Anti-stupidity you mean. One country does not solve problems with the environment. China is using coal through the roof as they make expensive energy alternatives to sell to the US. Trump ended the insanity.
    
    
    
    
  • blatant attempt to steal the 2026 midterms by coercing states to gerrymander for political (not census) reasons
    
    No, Trump advocated that red states simply do what blue states had done & perfected long ago.
    
    
    
    
  • failed miserably on his campaign promise to lower prices
    
    We agreed that lowering prices would be a tall order. He did try. Let's hope the middle class will be saved.
    
    
• failed miserably on his campaign promise to end the Ukraine war
  
  He at least tried. So, the war must go on. Is that a good thing?
  
  
• is a national embarrassment given he is the voice, face, and hand of the USA, yet publicly trolls our allies (in particular, Canada) and whines about not being awarded the Peace prize and then vindictively threatens not to be motivated for peace
  
  He does have his rough edges, but I'll take him every time.
  
  
  Well, TiG, you threw a lot of shit at the wall, and it didn't take much to hose it down.

You have failed to prove that and even the illegitimate Jack Smith refused to go there.

You have proved willingness to post denial of reality.

That is beyond a generalization.

More denial.   Trump surrounds himself with sycophants and prioritizes obsequiousness over competence.   Hegseth is the main example followed by Bondi and Patel.   While I consider Rubio a good pick, in the Trump environment, he too has been forced into obsequiousness to preserve his position.

As did Joe Biden.

False.  Biden cooperated, Trump obstructed.   That is the key difference.

They helped perpetuate a hoax against Trump at the request of then president Obama.

This is pure fantasy in direct denial of reality.   

All of which had created hoaxes and discriminated against students and Jews.

More denial of reality.

Pots of USAID money often supported the personal projects of ambassadors and politicians for their own political purposes. 

USAID had problems, no doubt, and I would have not objected to fixing these problems.   But that is not what Trump did, he abruptly basically killed USAID and that is what my bullet point stated.

Those who don't have their faith in the policy should be fired

Those who do not bow to the leader are fired.   That is how authoritarian rule operates.   Blindness!

He didn't need permission to do that.

Not the point!   Just because a PotUS can do something does not make it the right (competent) thing to do.

The jet is not a personal gift. It remains for his successor.

Yes, they can visit it at the Trump presidential library.

Not a good idea, but hardly important.

Illustrates how Trump is abusing the presidency for his personal whims.   Shows the characters of the abysmal human being you continue to try to defend.

He used they in the same way as Eisenhower & Kennedy did to enforce federal law and protect federal employees & property. 

Not even close.   There was no problem to be solved.   Trump engaged in theatrics and created problems instead of solving them.

Those weren't communities. They are resistance centers.

Again denying reality.   Your posts reflect a bizarre alternate reality.

The SCOTUS will decide that.

No, Vic, the SCotUS does not decide whether or not Trump has damaged international relationships.   Again, your posts ignore some of the most blatantly obvious facts of reality.   In this case, ignoring the obvious damage Trump has unnecessarily done to international relationships and the perception of the USA by the rest of the planet.

The WHO was a rogue organization and the UN had become anti-Israel & anti-west. 

More fantasy.

Anti-stupidity you mean.  One country does not solve problems with the environment.

Talk about stupidity!!   The way to effect changes in behavior is to lead by example.   Trump is leading with the exact opposite example.   

No, Trump advocated that red states simply do what blue states had done & perfected long ago.

More fantasy.   Trump has been pushing red states to gerrymander mid census in an attempt to maintain an R majority.   Amazing that you deny even this.   And, by the way, gerrymandering is bad.   It should NEVER be done.   So even if Trump was doing this 'because the Ds did it' he is being irresponsible.   He has even triggered more gerrymandering by the Ds to counter his efforts so he, of course, just made things worse.

We agreed that lowering prices would be a tall order. He did try.

The moron focused on tariffs!   Hello?

He at least tried.

He said he would end it in a phone call while president elect.   It is now 15 months later.   Trump's great plan, it seems, was to pressure Ukraine into surrender.   The man is an incompetent buffoon.

He does have his rough edges, but I'll take him every time.

He is an embarrassment and is dangerous.   You helped give an incompetent, irrational, psychopath more power than anyone else on the planet.

Imagine how the conservative brain works; Pence and Biden could hold the "classified documents" that they possessed in one hand, therefore they are equally as guilty ( or innocent ) as trump who had so many cartons it required multiple vans to move to and from Mara lago with maybe 10 cartons never retrieved from the NJ Golf Club.

Imagine how the conservative brain works;

I can't even.

They caught him moving around document he said he never had, he said were his, he said he just had to 'think' about them, and abra cadabbras, they were no longer Top Secret or classified, thus Trump was admitting he had them and wrongfully claimed what were never his, were just that...

Those who don't have their faith in the policy should be fired

Said Goebbels, Mengele, Gorring and Koch.  Sure let's be like them with absolutely no regard for any alternate world views.

It needed to go. Congress may have created it but nobody controlled it.

Nonsense, it was State Department controlled.

Those weren't communities. They are resistance centers. They were firing on Ft Sumter again.

Hysterical opinion.

The jet is not a personal gift. It remains for his successor.

Not even close.

“If it is a gift to the president, it is clearly not legal,” Super told us. “If, as the president has said, it is a gift to the United States government, that would be legal. But if there’s a proviso as has been reported that [the aircraft] would be made available to the president after he leaves office” as a part of his library museum, “then it would be illegal.”

Trump has said the jet would be   decommissioned   after he leaves office and donated to his presidential library. He noted that a similar arrangement was made for the Air Force One   used by President Ronald Reagan , which was decommissioned in 2001 and presented to the Reagan museum. That aircraft was not a gift to Reagan from a foreign nation.

Unwrapping Qatar's $400 Million Winged Gift to Trump - FactCheck.org

Which begs the question of why would we spend any money to retrofit it to become another AF1 when it may not be finished for years and cost between $400 million to a Billion and destined to be decommissioned in less than three years.

The  U.S. accepted  a luxury Boeing Jet as a gift from Qatar in May, with plans to retrofit it to become the next Air Force One. The Air Force says the effort will cost less than $400 million for the updates. Other estimates show it could cost more than $1 billion.  Whatever happened to the Qatar Air Force One jet? | Fox News

Why waste $1 on it?

The WHO was a rogue organization and the UN had become anti-Israel & anti-west.  They all failed their mission.

How so?  Is their mission to kiss the ass of every American administration? They certainly aren't anti west but they can't exactly pick and choose who they let commit genocide can they?  Your opinions cloud your judgements.

Anti-stupidity you mean. One country does not solve problems with the environment. China is using coal through the roof as they make expensive energy alternatives to sell to the US. Trump ended the insanity.

More evidence of what you think you know but don't know. 

Sad

Even if Biden and Pence had a ton of classified documents, the difference is that they both cooperated in their safe return — normal, rational behavior.

Trump, in major contrast, not only did not cooperate, he also actively obstructed their safe return.

Yes, I do.

"Just in: GREAT JOBS NUMBERS, FAR GREATER THAN EXPECTED!

LMAO!!!!!

Trump keeps winning

Then it must not be a morality test. 

Trump keeps winning: President takes victory lap after latest job numbers shatter expectations

Wow, but consider the source first. The Western Journal, another Questionable source according to MBFC . 

• Overall, we rate Western Journal Right Biased and Questionable based on story selection and editorial opinions that strongly favor the right and numerous failed fact checks
• Western Journal - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check

Not shocking that a Potus would revel in an anemic jobs reports that exceeded the dismal predictions.  What a low bar.

Most importantly, the BLS revised downward its payroll growth numbers for most of 2025, from 584,000 to 151,000 . This means that monthly payrolls did not grow last year by nearly 50,000, as we thought, but instead grew at a very paltry 15,000 per month . Compared to last January, unemployment and job loss have risen somewhat; permanent job loss and long-term job loss are higher than last year , while ticking up modestly in January. January Jobs Report Shows Gains but Big 2025 Revisions

But blow those trumpets for the emperor's new clothes, lol.

Wow, but consider the source first.

when you can't argue the information argue the source.