Massive Economic Boycott Planned for Pro-Trump Businesses

HBGPreloader

Well-Known Member
"Speaking on Capitol Hill Thursday, Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet Yellen warned lawmakers that as they consider such spending, they should keep an eye on the national debt. Yellen also said that while the economy needed a big boost with fiscal stimulus after the financial crisis, that's not the case now."

Seems like Fed is as close to being in the right mind set as they have been in a long while. But you probably missed that bit of news because you were obsessing over one random person on the internet.....
So, after nearly doubling the federal debt in 8 years, Yellen actually is concerned about it now?
HA!
 

JL 0513

Well-Known Member
Question is, why would any business endorse Clinton when Clinton campaigned on raping corporation's with even higher taxes and regulations which are already the highest in the world? Any CEO should be fired on the spot for incompetence if they supported Clinton for sabotaging their own company.
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
Question is, why would any business endorse Clinton when Clinton campaigned on raping corporation's with even higher taxes and regulations which are already the highest in the world? Any CEO should be fired on the spot for incompetence if they supported Clinton for sabotaging their own company.

cause she told them what she would really do when she made her 200 K speech's
 

JL 0513

Well-Known Member
I think it's great Barry inspired you to start paying attention to the debt. I hope you stay involved and hold DonJon as accountable as you hold Obama.

I was worried about it under Bush who spent like a Democrat. I'm surprised Dems didn't like him. Then Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" for racking up the debt he did. Wonder what that makes Obama.

I'm also not naive to think the debt won't increase substantially under Trump. I'm very much against some of his spending proposals. But really it's the autopilot programs that's the main drivers. SS and Medicare. For this reason US debt would increase even if we elected the most fiscally conservative person to ever enter government. It's really hopeless because no politician or Congress will or could do what is necessary. $30T? $40T? What will be the breaking point?
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
I was worried about it under Bush who spent like a Democrat. I'm surprised Dems didn't like him. Then Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" for racking up the debt he did. Wonder what that makes Obama.

I'm also not naive to think the debt won't increase substantially under Trump. I'm very much against some of his spending proposals. But really it's the autopilot programs that's the main drivers. SS and Medicare. For this reason US debt would increase even if we elected the most fiscally conservative person to ever enter government. It's really hopeless because no politician or Congress will or could do what is necessary. $30T? $40T? What will be the breaking point?
Sorry I thought you said you voted for Trump......
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
How much of that was from the Bush II wars?

in fairness to Obama not the wars as much as the economic collapse that both Bush and a democratic run congress were responsible for. I always found it interesting that Obama was part of that congress yet blamed bush for the economic conditions he inherited.
 

dudebro

Well-Known Member
It took all of American history to reach $10.5T. It took the last 8 years to reach $20T.
Yes, but look at the DIRECTION the debt has been going the past 6 years after we had to TARP our way out of the Wall St. disaster....

upload_2016-11-20_10-29-44.png
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
in fairness to Obama not the wars as much as the economic collapse that both Bush and a democratic run congress were responsible for. I always found it interesting that Obama was part of that congress yet blamed bush for the economic conditions he inherited.

He may have been a member but rarely showed up and voted even less often.
 

watdaflock?

Well-Known Member
The only thing boycotts hurt are the jobbers at the bottom who end up losing their jobs due to lower demand those boycotts cause.

Way to go, you really showed that greedy CEO who will never allow them self to go broke.

Maybe a little bit but not entirely true. It'll effect the CEO's (among other big shots) who own stock and are paid equity-based. Most likely the normal turnover of entry level employee's would prevent anyone from actually being fired from a loss of sales. Look at UPS and the turnover of it's seasonal temps, for example.

When the big bosses in the fancy offices see less millions, they make less and if it's a public stock company the shareholders will act.
 

JL 0513

Well-Known Member
in fairness to Obama not the wars as much as the economic collapse that both Bush and a democratic run congress were responsible for. I always found it interesting that Obama was part of that congress yet blamed bush for the economic conditions he inherited.

Who's to blame for the 2008 crisis is a huge conversation but it had little to do with Bush. Mainstream thought associates all problems with whoever is sitting in the oval office at the time. What people fail to understand is that many of the biggest issues and problems are built up over decades. Blaming Bush for the housing bubble among other things that were built up since Jimmy Carter is sad. Bush had seen some troubling signs and were assured by Barney Frank and others that everything was fine. Because the downfall happened under Bush, it was ignored that Democrats for decades stated that home ownership was essentially a right regardless of ability hence pushing sub prime loans.

Now, Trump could face a debt bubble popping when he has nothing to do with $20T of debt. But if it happens in the next 4 years, the public will say it's all Trump's (and Republicans) fault. That's the breaks of the presidency.
 
Top