Regulation, Deregulation and the Markets: Bloomberg View

By | December 8, 2017

  • December 8, 2017 at 8:46 am
    DG says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 5

    What a strange perspective.

    Knowing what we know about Obama’s predilection for politicizing every institution he could, it’s unlikely that someone working in his Executive branch could provide objective commentary. Those concerns seem validated by the suggestions that Trump’s moves are at once not particularly impactful and slowly implemented while Obama’s incredibly slow recovery from the 2008 recession puts him in rare company.

    It’s easy to take blame or credit away from a president’s impact on the economy, but as outgoing president, Obama said that 3% GDP growth predicted by Trump was a “fairy tale”. Now it’s known as “reality”.

    • December 8, 2017 at 10:31 am
      Ron says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 3

      DG,

      Was anything written false? Just because you think this was a political piece and you do not like the message, does not demean the truth within it.

      You said, “Obama said that 3% GDP growth predicted by Trump was a ‘fairy tale’. Now it’s known as ‘reality’.” I do not recall him saying this so if you could cite a source quoting him, I would appreciate that. Considering the fact that GDP growth exceeded 3% during multiple quarters during his own presidency, it would make no sense for him to make that statement.

      • December 8, 2017 at 11:21 am
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        “Search the internet; the BO quote is out there.” I already did and could not find it. If you know he said it, it should be easy for you or DG to provide the source.

        “So, it seems your tactic of discreditting people with opposing views is to ask them to find things that are readily available to you.” If one cannot source their information, they are discrediting themselves. It seems the tactic for most on the right is to post something ridiculous, then avoiding providing proof.

        “You must assume you won’t be called out on it.” false. I just want to see the quote for myself.

    • December 8, 2017 at 2:57 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 8

      DG, do you not know the history of Cass Sunstein? He was the Czar of Obama in the basement writing all those nasty regulations which stymied business for the last eight years? Of course he is going to make light of the cost of regulations since he played a big part in doing them. We all know how burdened the economy has been under Progressive rule, and now our great President is unburdening them to free up the economy. IJ should be ashamed of publishing any article by one of the most Progressive Harvard professors ever in the public arena.

      • December 8, 2017 at 3:10 pm
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 1

        If all you can do is discredit the source/author, and not the facts, then you have no argument.

        • December 8, 2017 at 3:28 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 8

          Mr. Progressive, how about you doing some research for a change? The cost of regulations by the Federal Government is a whopping $1.9 Trillion with a T, not the insignificant amount the Harvard professor said it was. Google Federal Cost of Regulation and it might open your almost blind eyes.

          Just think, if we cut about half of the regulations our great President wants to do, we would have a significant surplus instead of a deficit. GDP would probably be 7-8% instead of 3.3%. Progressives just couldn’t understand why the economy didn’t grow more in the last 8 years. Lay much of it at the feet of thousands upon thousands of regulations made by people like Cass Sunstein.

        • December 11, 2017 at 1:30 pm
          AlJohn FranKonyers Hypocrite Groapologists says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 2

          @Ron; Agent faulted the author of FAILED regulations over the last 8 years. The FAILURE of those regulations to do anything but stall and stymie business activity is the proof that the source/author is a failure, and that his work should be abandoned / disregarded / overturned. I’m sure you’ll disagree, so find the comparative numbers and the current stock market surge, and report back ASAP. Ready, steady, … GO!

          • December 11, 2017 at 4:54 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            AIJohn, Cass Sunstein is a known leftist of the first order. Everything he writes is from a leftist perspective and being from Harvard, that makes him worse.

          • December 12, 2017 at 10:00 am
            AlJohn FranKonyers Hypocrite Groapologists says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Being from Harvard isn’t automatically bad. If you accept everything Harvard professors without questioning it, THAT’s bad.

            Likewise, regulations can be helpful. Far too many of them are restrictions on free markets, or restrictions on consumers’ choices, which leads to restricted markets, thus inefficiencies, higher than necessary costs, and LOWER GDP growth (e.g. The Dismal Obama Years).

      • December 8, 2017 at 3:21 pm
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 1

        Funny how the only economic indicator you and Bob liked to bring up for the past 2 years, Labor Participation Rate, does not come up from you 2 any more. Could that be because it is the same as it was 12 months ago and has actually decreased since President Trump took office?

        • December 8, 2017 at 3:47 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 5

          2.2 million new jobs created in less than a year, 228,000 in just November. This is despite having the Hurricanes that slowed hiring down for a while. Unemployment at 17 year low. Hispanic unemployment at all time low. Any more Progressive lies you want to spread? Everyone in business is happy with what is going on except apparently you Ron. The prospect of Tax relief will only spur growth more.

          I really feel sorry for you and your Progressive dream is fading rapidly. By the way, Mad Dog Mattis is kicking some serious ISIS butt in Syria and Iraq. Nice to see us letting our military do their job instead of just calling them the JV team.

          • December 11, 2017 at 11:03 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Net Jobs gains in the first 9 months of:
            2016 – 1.797 million
            2017 – 1.444 million

            https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

          • December 11, 2017 at 11:56 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 3

            @Ron; please post a link to FULL TIME JOBS on BLS.GOV. instead of the numbers you posted. Hint: ACA 30 hours per week exemption.

          • December 11, 2017 at 12:02 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            @Ron;

            To use your preferred stat, despite its flaws in counting a job for 29 hours as a ‘job’, and counting a job for 40 hours per week as ‘a job’….

            First 11 months of 2016: 2.082M
            First 11 months of 2017: 1.961M.

            Difference: 169k.

            Dec. 2016: 155k.
            Dec. 2017: ? +324k jobs are required to equal 2016 totals.

        • December 11, 2017 at 9:33 am
          AlJohn FranKonyers Hypocrite Groapologists says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 3

          @Ron: if Illegal Immigrants are heading back to their countries of origin, people legally in the US retire and/ or die, and the US population stagnates, what will happen, momentarily, to workforce counts? See BLS.gov for help.

        • December 11, 2017 at 4:22 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 2

          Could it be that Obama’s LPR did not raise his entire 8 years in office, and I’m waiting to see what occurs with the LPR?

          You are a piece of @%@#$ by the way. You’re trying to call out everyone as a hypocrite literally as the crux of the majority of your arguments.

          It generally takes time for things to change, and getting you know, the policies you want.

          You can’t change that the LPR did poorly with Obama, and if YOU start focusing on the LPR now, YOU are the hypocrite.

        • December 11, 2017 at 4:28 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 2

          Also, I feel the need to point you here:

          https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate

          The noise in the LPR rate at this point in time could also be a trend up. We don’t know that just yet, the LPR takes time to move. Looking at each individual month is foolish.

          This is much the same as your comment about quarters of growth.

          3 quarters of 3% would be very good, and has not happened in some time. It remains to be seen if that happens, and that is with Trump acting mainly own his own to deregulate. Imagine what could happen if liberals stop stonewalling everything (you made this same comment about Obama by the way, the only difference is I have 3 quarters to reference, evidence of blocking, and, LPR figures could be going up when looking at the chart I linked)

          Obama had low GDP growth and you tried to write it off as saying it was normalized. Someone on this page said Obama normalized it, and now you tried to corner him. I saw you do it. You’re not that smart. You asked when Obama said it, to set him up and say “ah ha! Obama was talking annually, Trump is the one who mislead as he won’t get 3% this year!”. Yes. Trump won’t this year, however, 3% growth for 3 quarters didn’t happen much in Obama’s presidency. I believe it was either once or twice if I recall correctly I’ll have to look it up and I’m busy.

          So this is a sign of change. You are a slimeball. I see how you debate, and just because you try to talk better than everyone and pretend not to insult doesn’t make you good.

          • December 12, 2017 at 10:09 am
            AlJohn FranKonyers Hypocrite Groapologists says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            @bob; I am aware of his tactics of cherry picking, using immature data, censoring data that doesn’t support his agenda, etc.

            Re: your bar chart link…

            The bars start at 62.6%, rather than start at 0%, thus exaggerating the month to month differences, which are very small. Truncating the bars at 62.6 provides a misleading visual presentation… that won’t occur if you calculate the PERCENTAGE changes from 62.6 to whatever the stat is for the month. The highest bar is 63.1%, which is five units about the lowest reading (62.6%).

            A longer history of Obama’s Administration is needed to see any trends, as is also true for a longer history under Trump. You correctly point out the flat LPR for Obama, which is obscured by truncating the chart at 12 prior months.

        • December 11, 2017 at 4:36 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 2

          Also:

          “Could it be that Obama’s LPR did not raise his entire 8 years in office, and I’m waiting to see what occurs with the LPR?”

          And I should add:

          “And this fact hid the true unemployment rate most his presidency?”

          People dropped out of the workforce. Jobs growth were not where they should have been, and people are heralding Obama’s economy, and he tried to self praise himself all the time. The LPR is very important due to this. It has to be considered because of the perception of a falling unemployment rate which was a lie. Trump, we need more data. How dare you, I am not a hypocrite on this.

          Lower than 2% growth is his final number over 8 years, a declining LPR rate, this is not sustainable if it continues. Obama did not do well on the economy. It is time to admit it, and move on. From 2010 onward, even removing some years, he averaged 2.1%. That is not a recovering economy.

          You actually defended him saying people are out of the work force for a reason and multiple times explained away his economy. We aren’t the hypocrites addicted to attacking one side: You are.

          • December 11, 2017 at 4:50 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 4

            Bob, anyone who has common sense and has been paying attention in the past 8 years know that Obama was an abysmal failure in about every way a President can fail. Progressivism has never worked and will never work in this country. I am not tired of winning and with the higher LPR and GDP expected after the tax cuts, it will be tremendous for America.

          • December 11, 2017 at 5:16 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            If the LPR does go up for Trump, I wonder if Ron will finally 180 on this one.

            I will bring it up if say in the next 2 years it goes up, and if he then says it is democrats (who will probably win back majorities in 2018) I will rip him a new one.

          • December 11, 2017 at 5:18 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            My reason behind that by the way is thus:

            I am nearly certain Trump will lose 2020, and if he does this, makes that LPR start going up, and disproves the baby boomers and college students as being the reason for the LPR accordingly, and then democrats take control, it will reverse the trend.

            They will fight to put back in place every policy that stagnated the LPR.

            The high corporate tax rates, over regulation, etc.

            And Ron, had better seek to stop that if it turns out Trump is the reason for such a change.

          • December 12, 2017 at 9:55 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            “It generally takes time for things to change, and getting you know, the policies you want.” Yet, president Trump and all of his lemmings want to give him all the credit for all of the positive economic results we are currently experiencing. I wonder if you be saying this if the LPR was increasing each month since January. Probably not.

            “You can’t change that the LPR did poorly with Obama, and if YOU start focusing on the LPR now, YOU are the hypocrite.” I never focused on the LPR, and I am not now. You and Agent are the ones who suddenly stopped focusing on it since it has not improved. Just wondering what happened.

            Bob, you need to stop focusing on trying to lay blame and/or give credit to politicians for the economy. The people control it, not them. Focus on results. If they are good, be happy. If there are not, be sad. Neither you nor I can fix any of it and neither can the politicians on either side.

            Consider this, the LPR went:

            Up under President Reagan
            Down Under President GHW Bush
            Up under President Clinton
            Down under President GW Bush
            Down under President Obama

            Tell us again how the political affiliation of the POTUS affects the LPR.

          • December 12, 2017 at 10:13 am
            AlJohn FranKonyers Hypocrite Groapologists says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            @Ron; tell us the ABSOLUTE numbers behind those UPS and DOWNS. We want to see the PERCENTAGE CHANGES, not a single word categorization.

            ABSOLUTE changes will reveal things that aren’t taught in schools.

          • December 12, 2017 at 10:58 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            “We want to see the PERCENTAGE CHANGES, not a single word categorization.” Unlike you, I will actually answer your question.

            Reagan: +4.07%
            GHW Bush: -.45%
            Clinton: +1.51%
            GW Bush: -2.23%
            Obama: -4.26%

            This stuff is really easy to find: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate

            Maybe you can grow up and do your own research next time.

            This still shows the the LPR has both increased and decreased under presidents from both parties. Yes it did the best under President Reagan and the worst under President Obama.

            Anything else?

          • December 12, 2017 at 5:16 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            “It generally takes time for things to change, and getting you know, the policies you want.”

            Yet, president Trump and all of his lemmings (screw you for saying this, I have to add it in, bull crap. There are very little Trump lemmings. There are very MANY Obama lemmings, and you yourself say Obama shouldn’t be given credit, so why the focus on just the right and not the left Ron? This is a big deal, it is sleazy, and not ok.) want to give him all the credit for all of the positive economic results we are currently experiencing. I wonder if you be saying this if the LPR was increasing each month since January. Probably not.”

            Again you try to disprove me through dubious means. You’re the one in question on this matter. Certain economic trends tend to change slower than others, and for the LPR, as I just showed, look at the 10 year button. What do you notice? At minimum it has stopped shedding, and with comparing the trend, there appears to be an arch that may have started going up. The LPR shoots around a lot during time of year, etc. You have to compare at least 2 years, to show LPR during seasons, and to take into account other factors. When however, you have 3 quarters of 3% or higher gdp growth, which hasn’t happened other than 2 times in the last 10 years, that IS a sign of change in the positive. You are looking to prove people biased, you aren’t looking for truth. This is your weakness, how many times do I have to say it? Also: I would not have cared if it increased every month since January, unless it was odd. I have told many people to consider year to year, and trends.

            “You can’t change that the LPR did poorly with Obama, and if YOU start focusing on the LPR now, YOU are the hypocrite.”

            “I never focused on the LPR, and I am not now. You and Agent are the ones who suddenly stopped focusing on it since it has not improved. Just wondering what happened.”

            I am still focusing on it, you assumed. I cannot make statements that are not complete statements. I don’t make ignorant comments on that without knowing better. You were not just wondering, you wanted a method to call us fools, to disprove the person instead of the facts. As you said above, you suspect I would take whichever method looked best for Trump, and you have no evidence for this whatsoever, it is not a productive method of debate, and, moreover, it is a sleazy method of debate. My mother constantly says “you would have…” or says what someone’s past actions mean on their current ones. You have surely seen this, as I have said numerous times we ARE the same age group even though you lied and said you were post 40, so you for sure have seen this. You hate it, and probably associate it with being conservative, so why are you willing to do it to others? It is sleazy, shuts down debate, disallows a person to grow, in this regard I am a liberal. You know very well I do not cowtow to conservative ideals like Agent and yet you constantly say how we are similar. It sounds unrelated but it’s the same thing. You aren’t making ethical debate, you are using immoral methods to discredit the credibility of those who you do debate.

            “Bob, you need to stop focusing on trying to lay blame and/or give credit to politicians for the economy.”

            No I don’t, I only credit policies. You need to stop refusing to attribute policies to economic conditions.

            “The people control it, not them.”

            Bullcrap. I have numerous times seen companies shut down by bad regulation, and, our company was the target of such attempts through regulation once we became a big enough fish to become a concern. Regulations were used to try and shut us down, by multiple states, and multiple states who let off their friends. Highly regulated markets do get damaged. You cannot just shrug off all economic theory in the name of a philosophical argument point here, that I give too much credit to politicians.

            “Focus on results.”

            Same to you. Focus on the poor results of Obama. Which you still won’t do, and recently said “thank you” to Obama for where we are now. Did you mean that? Because it seems you are willing to attribute growth to presidents. Or did you just say that because you wanted to make a point to the hypocrite conservatives who do it? This is why your method of debate needs to die. I seriously now do not even know which it was.

            “If they are good, be happy. If there are not, be sad. Neither you nor I can fix any of it and neither can the politicians on either side.”

            No need for my comment.

            “Consider this, the LPR went:
            Up under President Reagan
            Down Under President GHW Bush
            Up under President Clinton
            Down under President GW Bush
            Down under President Obama
            Tell us again how the political affiliation of the POTUS affects the LPR.”

            Again a narrow-minded way of looking at it trying to focus on each individual and not circumstance, and, while trying to tie that altogether somehow.

            Do you want my answer to this?

            Here goes:

            Reagan did phenomenal in this area. It is not at all debatable. Jobs growth increased faster than the rate of population. He did have some factors working in his favor though: He followed a recession. No wait, what, you say? This is why I’ve said Obama and Reagan are comparable. Guess what happens after a dip? Usually, things go back up. Reagan didn’t do everything he should have, and I have blamed him for setting up the need to file as a S corp. If you look since the 80’s it is clear he caused that. The firms changed to get what were lower marginal rates. The corporate tax rates were too high. On GHWB: He followed a large expansion. His growth should have been slow for LPR, and also, you’re wrong that it went down. Look at the chart. It peaked and stayed the same, but did not go down. This is likely due to the fact that jobs growth had exceeded population growth for some time. Bill: President during a global economic bubble including dot com busts that happened. He raised corporate taxes, and the economy grew despite him, not due to him, when we compare Canada. I say this a million times. I do not do some simple comparison like you. Canada lowered their tax rates for corporations as we kept them high. Corporate revenues went up, and around that same time, which was global expansions, their LPR shot up as well.

            https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/labor-force-participation-rate

            Now here is the kicker. You said the LPR went up with Bill. Not nearly to the same degree as Reagan. 66.2 to 67.2, and Reagan was 63.9 to 66.5. 1% vs 2.6%. I will agree that some degree of this has to do with an aging population, I will not agree that college is the reason our LPR is low (kids should have a job by 24, and if this is due to college education considering estimates are the 5 million jobs cannot be filled due to skill gaps, it shows our college system is failing if it’s keeping kids out of the market, lowering the LPR, and still isn’t filling the jobs needed. Making college free won’t solve this problem).

            I could go further and further, and further, but I am wasting too much time educating you. You’re basically a fool, and a tyrant. Your debate methods are sleazy, if you don’t like that, change it. It’s not ok to walk in here talking about how anyone giving Trump credit is a lemming, and trying to call them all hypocrites. If you want push back, continue, and I’ll continue to throw fists. I’m not like a liberal in one way:

            I am in no way associated with the millennial corruption and pc crowd, I loathe their methods, and I am much closer to my father, a baby boomer, in my debate methods (not logics).

            I don’t tolerate this type of tar. I’m not afraid to say that. I’m not afraid to push back, and I know, sometimes, telling someone they are an idiot, and explaining why, is absolutely necessary, whereas telling someone they shouldn’t call someone an idiot and disregarding debate with that method (you’ve done this) is and will lead to, tyranny.

          • December 12, 2017 at 5:20 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            So as an aside: If I commented on the LPR and said we cannot analyze it without comparing year over year, you would have called me a lemming defending Trump, you just said those here who defend his record are lemmings.

            If I don’t say anything, you call me a lemming too, why didn’t I speak?

            And I can prove this unlike you. You just now called me out based on not saying anything, and you called out Agent, for making points I basically would have made showing economic growth. If I defended Trump, I would have been a lemming. If I didn’t, I would have been oddly silent right? And thus a lemming. My God you’re a terrible Catholic, and as I get to know more about you I see you may be the style of my mother as one, and she is a vile human being. Vile. This tactic which is similar to yours, has lead to her refusing to accept any reality, and to be cruel to others. You talk about religious zealots, this is how they are made, your tactics. You can stop them now, or become a tyrant. Your choice.

          • December 12, 2017 at 5:36 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Let me clue you in on this:

            Do you know how Planet said he was Catholic and left?

            Do you know why Catholics leave?

            When someone demonstrates an imperviousness to consistent logic and harasses others based on their own logics, (as you have done) to prove them wrong instead of taking actual debate, (which you often refuse) it degrades the individual and doesn’t demonstrate a fair game, with equal rules to the individual they are debating. Often, the person like Planet, goes the complete other way, and joins in on that method of debate, which like it or not, is your fault.

            I left the Church Ron. I went atheist, Ron. I hated the Catholic Church, Ron. And I keep repeating your name, because it is people like you, Ron, who made me hate it.

            You weaponized it when it meets your gain (and yet claim it is the other side who does it), and then abandon it when it doesn’t. You say you want it out of politics when it meets your gain, and use it to your advantage outside of that to claim you’re a good person. You use it to say other people aren’t credible, your own church you betray, and you rarely defend people who are credible people otherwise and Catholic, in fact, you’ve attempted to go after me on this very anti gay aspect, and I am not atypical within the Catholic Church for someone who finally came back with regards to my logics and structures on the matter, nor am I anti gay. You degraded me as a gay hater, anti gay, etc, as if those could be the only reasons to not port over gay laws from standard marriage, and, in that, you made a middle ground solution impossible, you actually destroyed it entirely, because you destroyed all the actual debate on the matter and labeled anyone based on who they were, instead of what they were saying. This is precisely the opposite of the lessons taught in the Church, with say the adulteress. That’s destructive Ron, and it’s why you condemn the concept and logics, you don’t seem to call someone illogical based on what you perceive they are hypocrites in or in your case, are treating unfairly for one side vs another. You have been far more focused in seeing a hypocrite Catholic, or a hypocrite person, than you were the debate I was saying, and for that, it enraged me, I might add, and would enrage other Catholics, or make them doubt the Church.

            You are not debating properly and you need to admit that fact. It’s why I often ignore you now. You may see me saying some typical conservative things here, but you might, if you paid attention, see MANY are liberal as well. I am not involved in your petty games. There are many tactics and beliefs I employ that are deeply liberal. I am soon helping a family who needs it, I’ve gave advice to the daughter only when she came to me, and I explained to her what aspects of what she was doing made sense, she was young and trying to find a good relationship, no one wants a bad one, after all, and said I trusted that what God put in her would motivate her to eventually find the person she’s meant to be with. The how doesn’t always matter to God I said, what matters is you are taken care of. That’s what marriage is for. A more conservative Catholic might tell a rebellious child how sinful they were for having sex outside of marriage. I don’t see the point in it. I am not a conservative in this respect.

            The HPV vaccine, the opt out 401k modification idea from Obama, I have proof of my willingness to change sides as well.

            I said that if I’m wrong, if Trump gets his ideas and they don’t work, and I finally see that, I will advocate for someone like Bernie.

            I don’t have time for this petty junk with you Ron. You’ve never respected me as a human, something for which I am full aware.

            I’m tired of the games. It’s time to treat my arguments as rational, and then direct the concerns therein.

          • December 13, 2017 at 10:17 am
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            And respect is not gained through always playing the victim and constantly using shotgun argument tactics. It’s impossible to concisely respond to every argument and point bob raises while still staying on topic.

          • December 13, 2017 at 4:53 pm
            Doug Fisher says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Ron earned achievement: “Unleashed the bobkraken”

            bob, you could cut down on the pages and pages of writing if you cut the self-righteous insults and name-calling. Goodness gracious is that a bunch of vacuous nonsense.

  • December 14, 2017 at 4:41 pm
    Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    Doug, Bob has his failings and often writes books instead of posts, but he is mostly right. One of the few moderates from the State of Washington which we call the left coast for a good reason.

    I wonder how that Seattle income tax is working out for him.

    • December 14, 2017 at 4:56 pm
      Confused says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      you call it the left coast and it’s on the left coast. #genius i bet you call oregon west coast too



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*