Have changes in leadership impacted you?

[dolf]

I'm not talking about the fear mongering, the changes in the economy, etc. I'm talking about a real, noticeable change to your personal situation, and why you think it's connected to whoever was in charge at the time.

 

[jaF0]

Every time I see the 'I' word used in a phrase like this, I want to impact them with a speeding locomotive.

Get a fucking Thesaurus.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

I'm not talking about the fear mongering, the changes in the economy, etc. I'm talking about a real, noticeable change to your personal situation, and why you think it's connected to whoever was in charge at the time.

After a single day? Not really. I do believe the impact will be an overall happier & more productive nation.

 

[dolf]

After a single day? Not really. I do believe the impact will be an overall happier & more productive nation.

I didn't specify which change in leadership.


Example? People who used Obamacare would be able to pinpoint a specific way that a changing regime impacted them.

 

[jaF0]

https://media.wired.com/photos/5a9f4684afa4b44b413e56b2/master/w_493,c_limit/train.jpg

 

[Lazaran]

I'm not talking about the fear mongering, the changes in the economy, etc. I'm talking about a real, noticeable change to your personal situation, and why you think it's connected to whoever was in charge at the time.

As you may have noticed, it takes a little while to feel the impacts of a change in leadership.

Trump didn't almost destroy America on day one of his presidency, but he sure came close by day 1446.

I'm guessing trans individuals in the military personally felt the impacts of the change in leadership early on, as did those on the receiving end of the police brutality that Trump encouraged.

The ultra wealthy and corporations definitely felt the impacts of Trump's "leadership" early on when they benefited from the prioritized republicans tax cuts for influential donors.

As an older straight white middle class male, I didn't personally feel too much of an impact regardless of the change in leadership because, well, privilege.

 

[LupusDei]

I plan to shave my beard off. Sometime soon.

 

[Funit]

In all honesty, another term of Trump would have been more trouble than it would have been worth. Conservative people need to ask themselves a question - was the country a more conservative country, socially, under Trump? the answer to that is no. All Trump in office served to do was galvanise and bring out the extreme left opposition to him.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

In all honesty, another term of Trump would have been more trouble than it would have been worth. Conservative people need to ask themselves a question - was the country a more conservative country, socially, under Trump? the answer to that is no. All Trump in office served to do was galvanise and bring out the extreme left opposition to him.

The first term was more trouble than it was worth. The sooner you clowns realize that the better off you'll be.

 

[phrodeau]

In all honesty, another term of Trump would have been more trouble than it would have been worth. Conservative people need to ask themselves a question - was the country a more conservative country, socially, under Trump? the answer to that is no. All Trump in office served to do was galvanise and bring out the extreme left opposition to him.

Uh huh.

https://www.liherald.com/uploads/original/20210118-152722-EsB6gYrXYAEFvDP.jpg

 

[jaF0]

As you may have noticed, it takes a little while to feel the effects of a change in leadership.

Trump didn't almost destroy America on day one of his presidency, but he sure came close by day 1446.

I'm guessing trans individuals in the military personally felt the effects of the change in leadership early on, as did those on the receiving end of the police brutality that Trump encouraged.

The ultra wealthy and corporations definitely felt the impacts of Trump's "leadership" early on when they benefited from the prioritized republicans tax cuts for influential donors.

As an older straight white middle class male, I didn't personally feel too much of an effect regardless of the change in leadership because, well, privilege.

Fixed your post.

 

[Paul_Chance]

For the most part, no. Professionally, from the 10,000 foot level, my career has been a pretty straightforward trajectory (up), regardless of the leadership of the country, including Trump. I have seen changes in my tax profile, but that's usually just a few percentage points around the edges up or down.

In the work sphere, I see the changes in specific policies that hit my customers, especially in and around business compliance issues - but that's always been a positive hit (yes, my business, project management and software integration consulting, benefits from customers hiring us so the can provide the latest TPS report to the TPS Report Monitoring Agency - LOL - in other words reports no one actually reads but are required).

I've got friends, family, and acquaintances on all sides of the political sphere - the crazy ones stay crazy, the sane ones stay sane. The buddy who had a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome had a bad case of Bush Derangement system. The crazy brother who is one bad day from living on a compound in Wyoming is still one bad day away.

 

[Lazaran]

Fixed your post.

Actually, "impact(s)" is a better choice because it connotes a negative "effect" caused by the change in leadership and likely indicates the intent of the person who chose to use "impact" rather than "effect".

That's why I chose to use "impact" rather than "effect". I can't speak for the OP.

 

[LLCox]

A change in leadership will affect me to the good. trump ordered all waters not navigable by boat to be removed from the Clean Water Act and they could pollute all they wanted to with no consequences. Where I live there are only creeks and streams with few big rivers free of obstacles.
I am waiting for Biden to get down in the, "To Do" pile to cancel that crap. My neighbor is polluting the hell out of the creek that runs through my property and must pay.

 

[jaF0]

Actually, "impact(s)" is a better choice because it connotes a negative "effect" caused by the change in leadership and likely indicates the intent of the person who chose to use "impact" rather than "effect".

That's why I chose to use "impact" rather than "effect". I can't speak for the OP.

It has a negative effect on my calm.


Knock off with all these negative waves man ....


http://www.themoviescene.co.uk/reviews/_img/1411-3.jpg

 

[freakyguy41]

I'm not talking about the fear mongering, the changes in the economy, etc. I'm talking about a real, noticeable change to your personal situation, and why you think it's connected to whoever was in charge at the time.

First... simple math... $ 1 trillion / 333 million people = $ 3000
So for every $ trillion added to the national debt, every U.S. citizen man woman and child's debt is increased an average of $ 3000... and the annual interest on the debt is around 2% (but has been higher) so every U.S. citizen man, woman and child pays an average of $ 60 interest for every $ trillion of the national debt. If the U.S. doesn't repay its debt before you die, then the remaining debt is passed to your children, grandchildren and their children until the debt is repaid.

So here you go... absolute PROVABLE FACTS...

After Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter... In 1981, the total U.S. debt was $ 897 billion.

After Reagan, total U.S. debt was $ 2.84 trillion. So Reagan tripled the national debt, the infusion of overspending created a hot economy which failed in recession. The poor and middle class spent their tax breaks during the good times and the $ 1.85 trillion overspend ended up in the hands of the wealthy and corporations ("earned as profit")... with the poor and middle class back to where they started... EXCEPT the poor and middle class were all now $ 5550 ($ 3000 x 1.85) more in debt and paying $ 111 more per year in tax to pay the interest.

GHW Bush added $ 1.5 trillion to the national debt in just 4 years... again creating a hot economy, advantage tax cuts to the wealthy, and the economy again fell into recession. The poor and middle class again spent their tax breaks during the good times and the $ 1.5 trillion overspend ended up in the hands of the wealthy and corporations ("earned as profit")... with the poor and middle class back to where they started... EXCEPT the poor and middle class were all now $ 4500 ($ 3000 x 1.5) more in debt and paying another $ 90 more per year in tax to pay the interest.

Clinton took Bush I's situation, let the tax cuts expire to reduce the 1994 overspend from Bush's $ 347 billion to Clinton's 1994 overspend of $ 288 billion. The economy skyrocketed thru the 90s... delivering so much more in revenue that Clinton actually created a budget surplus for three years until his last year in which the tech dot com crash resulted in a $ 133 billion overspend. Taken together, over eight years, Clinton added $ 1.4 trillion to the national debt. The poor and middle class again spent a portion and retained a portion of their incremental wealth during the good times but still about $ 1.0 trillion of the overspend ended up in the hands of the wealthy and corporations ("earned as profit")... the poor and middle class were a bit better off than they were in 1993... EXCEPT the poor and middle class were all now $ 4200 ($ 3000 x 1.4) more in debt and paying another $ 84 more per year in tax to pay the interest.

Bush followed the Reagan and Bush I trickle down approaches and added $ 5.9 trillion to the national debt in 8 years... again creating a hot economy, advantage tax cuts to the wealthy, and the economy again fell into near depression. The poor and middle class again spent their tax breaks during the good times and the $ 5.9 trillion overspend ended up in the hands of the wealthy and corporations ("earned as profit")... with the poor and middle class back to where they started... EXCEPT the poor and middle class were all now $ 17,700 ($ 3000 x 5.9) more in debt and paying another $ 354 more per year in tax to pay the increased interest. When Bush II took office, the U.S. economy was growing at about 3% and by the time he left office it was declining by about -4%.

Obama had no choice, he couldn't cut spending which would take money out of the economy and drive us into full on depression and he couldn't increase spending. So he let the tax cuts expire to stabilize the economy over his first two years. From 2010 to 2017, the U.S. economy had its longest continuous growth period in history averaging 2% and Obama reduced spending year over year. The Bush I overspend for FY 2009 was $ 1.6 trillion... the Obama overspend in FY 2017 was $ 450 billion. Taken together, over eight years, Obama added $ 8.6 trillion to the national debt. The poor and middle class again spent a portion and retained a portion of their incremental wealth but still most of the overspend ended up in the hands of the wealthy and corporations ("earned as profit")... the poor and middle class were surely better off than they were in 2009... EXCEPT the poor and middle class were all now $ 26,700 ($ 3000 x 8.9) more in debt and paying yet another $ 534 more per year in tax to pay the increased interest. When Obama took office the U.S. economy was declining at -4% and when he left office it was growing at +2%.

By 2016, there was more than enough data to prove trickle down was a failed strategy... it had taken place from 1920 to 1929 creating the great depression... again with Reagan it failed twice in two recessions... with Bush I resulting in his being a one term president... and again Bush II resulting in a near depression. Five times in a row it had been tried and five times in a row it grossly failed. However, what trickle down does very effectively is it transfers wealth from the poor and middle class to the most wealthy... as everyone prospers in the good times but when the economy falls into recession or depression, it's the very wealthy that end up with the overspend AND the poor and middle class are holding the majority of the debt bag to be paid back including the interest on the debt.

Enter Fascist trump. Immediately and massively overspends the budget creating the completely foreseeable hot economy with tax cuts favoring the wealthy. Pre-Covid, in just 4 years, trump had already overspent $ 5 trillion. With Covid, trump overspent in 4 years what Obama overspent in 8 years... roughly $ 8.6 trillion. The poor and middle class again spent their tax breaks during the good times and the $ 8.6 trillion overspend has all ended up in the hands of the wealthy and corporations ("earned as profit")... with the poor and middle class back to worse off than they started... EXCEPT the poor and middle class were all now $ 25,800 ($ 3000 x 8.6) more in debt and paying another $ 516 more per year in tax to pay the increased interest.

Today... we're about $ 28 trillion in debt... that's an average of $ 84,000 for every U.S. citizen... man woman or child PLUS we're all paying an average of $ 1680 in annual taxes just to pay the interest on the U.S. credit card balance. In short, we're not paying all this money back in our lifetime unless we create a world war to relieve us of the debt... so we have continued to pile debt on our children, grandchildren and their children to pay for temporary improvements to our pathetic lives today... and COVID has taken all the good times away... AND we've just handed Biden 50 lbs of shyt in a 5 lb bag. Anyone think this is what we should truly be doing to leave to our posterity?

 

[Dribble]

Yes...it was like a weight lifted off your shoulders. Fascism has no place in this country. And for 4 years, I watched it grow and grow. Anyone with kids, has to be breathing easier today.

In less than 8 hrs, the new Administration did more to fight COVID than the previous did in a year.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

All markets hit all time highs once biden was inaugurated.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Also, it did impact me personally. When I woke up this morning to read the news, trump wasnt all over page 1. This made me happy.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Also, it did impact me personally. When I woke up this morning to read the news, trump wasnt all over page 1. This made me happy.

Yep. And at the end of the day, that is enough for me. I'm easy like that.

 

[WillJ8787]

I'm not talking about the fear mongering, the changes in the economy, etc. I'm talking about a real, noticeable change to your personal situation, and why you think it's connected to whoever was in charge at the time.

Yes, I took my Mossberg out of my truck and put it and my other one in the house back in the safe. Lol!

Seriously, I've got family and friends who need to be covid vaccinated ASAP due to high risk health complications.

Under the prior administration, it was not likely that would happen for years.

The new administration has begun to ramp up logistics via the defense act so.it is much more likely they will get vaccinations much Sooner.

Is like to go back to some normalcy sooner as well...the economy is going to rebound very quickly once more than half the country has been vaccinated.