Ranking Trump's Stock Market

[Jack]

Oneuli: "To add to people's understanding of a top story in the news. I think context is important The meltdown of the stock market last week was bad, but it was in the context of a longer period of decent stock performance. So, understanding where we stand, considering both the good and the bad, is helpful. It turns out, where we stand, so far, taking Trump's time in office as a whole, is that it's been a middling run for markets -- a good first year and a poor second year, with the net result that portfolios are climbing modestly in real terms, but not with the kind of dramatic run up that makes people wealthy, as in the Clinton or Obama years."
Jack: The Market has gone up for 10 years, everyone knows the Market has to pull back at some point. It's not predicated on who's in Office.

Oneuli: "Now, back to my question. Is there a theory/agenda behind your insistence that there is no direct correlation between Presidents and the Stock Market?"
Jack; That is my belief, that the Stock Market isn't dictated by who is in Office. Your implied strategy of timing the Market by which Party is holding the Presidency, in my opinion, is flawed.

Onruli: "That depends on what the ownership class wants. If they want more rapid real stock growth, then Democratic presidents have historically been much better for that. If, however, what's important to them is being able to see fear in the eyes of their underlings, then Republicans have a whole lot to offer. As they destroy the social safety net, keep poverty rates high, and stagnate incomes at the median level, Republicans set up the wealthy to act more like their aristocratic ancestors did, back when the little people knew their pace. So, it all comes down to what the goal is: is the goal to succeed, or to watch the other guy fail?"
Jack: The goal, the only goal ... is to make money.

Oneuli: "There's nothing particularly insightful about my findings. It's LONG been understood that the markets do better with Democratic leadership. A crappy Rupert Murdoch tabloid like the Wall Street Journal may shy away from publishing such things, but they've been widely published elsewhere in the financial press: ..."
Jack; It's astonishing that more Wall Streeters don't vote for the Democrat. (OR ... maybe they don't subscribe to your Conclusion?)

Sooooo ... now that we settled that, how long do you think the downturn is going to last? First quarter 2019? Second quarter? End of 2019? How low will the Dow go? 20% drop from the high? 30%? More than that? Any thoughts on the algos and the machine trading?

To add to people's understanding of a top story in the news. I think context is important The meltdown of the stock market last week was bad, but it was in the context of a longer period of decent stock performance. So, understanding where we stand, considering both the good and the bad, is helpful. It turns out, where we stand, so far, taking Trump's time in office as a whole, is that it's been a middling run for markets -- a good first year and a poor second year, with the net result that portfolios are climbing modestly in real terms, but not with the kind of dramatic run up that makes people wealthy, as in the Clinton or Obama years.

Now, back to my question. Is there a theory/agenda behind your insistence that there is no direct correlation between Presidents and the Stock Market?



For those with money in the market, it matters a great deal. When the stock market is barreling up at high speed, as during the Obama or Clinton markets, it's child's play to put away a portfolio to retire on. When it's falling apart dramatically, as under Nixon or Bush, it's almost impossible to build a decent nest egg. When it's puttering along somewhere in the unremarkable middle, as with Trump or Reagan, you can build a good nest egg if you're smart about your investing, but it's not a can't-fail situation.



That's not an insinuation, it's an historical fact.



That depends on what the ownership class wants. If they want more rapid real stock growth, then Democratic presidents have historically been much better for that. If, however, what's important to them is being able to see fear in the eyes of their underlings, then Republicans have a whole lot to offer. As they destroy the social safety net, keep poverty rates high, and stagnate incomes at the median level, Republicans set up the wealthy to act more like their aristocratic ancestors did, back when the little people knew their pace. So, it all comes down to what the goal is: is the goal to succeed, or to watch the other guy fail?



There's nothing particularly insightful about my findings. It's LONG been understood that the markets do better with Democratic leadership. A crappy Rupert Murdoch tabloid like the Wall Street Journal may shy away from publishing such things, but they've been widely published elsewhere in the financial press:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterl...-is-better-for-the-stock-market/#62027f33239d



That's about right.

 

[Jack]

You know, I'm starting to think this doesn't really have anything to do with the Stock Market, and more to do with:

a. Oneuli has a 'Democratic Party Agenda' and is using a select group of statistics to further her goals.
b. Oneuli has a 'Get Rich Quick' scheme of 'Market Timing' and is using the JPP Politics Forum to lure in the Rubes here.

Either way, the Shine is starting to rub off this Object. (It's always the ones you least suspect)

 

[cawacko]

You know, I'm starting to think this doesn't really have anything to do with the Stock Market, and more to do with:

a. Oneuli has a 'Democratic Party Agenda' and is using a select group of statistics to further her goals.
b. Oneuli has a 'Get Rich Quick' scheme of 'Market Timing' and is using the JPP Politics Forum to lure in the Rubes here.

Either way, the Shine is starting to rub off this Object. (It's always the ones you least suspect)

Haha, your "b" made me laugh. Well played.

It's pretty clear she has a pro-Democrat agenda. I'm a partisan myself so I can't knock others for being like me but you hit on the key point earlier, statistics can be spun many ways to tell a story the author wants to be told.

 

[Oneuli]

Jack: The Market has gone up for 10 years, everyone knows the Market has to pull back at some point. It's not predicated on who's in Office.

With any given up or down of the market, we'll be able to point to various hypotheses for why it moved the way it did, having nothing to do with the president. But, if you look to a long timeline, if presidents didn't matter much, you wouldn't expect to see much difference between market performance during Democratic presidencies and Republican ones, since all those little quirks and coincidences would be washed out in the flood of data.... e.g., one time a Democrat would inherit a long-running stock boom (e.g., Clinton in 1993) and the next time it would be a Republican who did so (e.g., Bush in 2001). Yet, the simple fact is there's a HUGE difference in the average rate of real market increase with a Democratic president versus a Republican one. Maybe that's just an elaborate and weirdly consistent coincidence. Or maybe there's some underlying dynamics at work we haven't understood. But it's irrational to dismiss that correlation merely because it's politically uncomfortable to acknowledge.

Jack; That is my belief, that the Stock Market isn't dictated by who is in Office.

Why?

Your implied strategy of timing the Market by which Party is holding the Presidency, in my opinion, is flawed.

I didn't imply that strategy. What made you imagine I did?

Jack: The goal, the only goal ... is to make money.

Clearly that's wrong. If the only goal was to make money, nobody would ever buy anything, other than the bare minimums needed for subsistence, and investments. In reality, the wealthy buy all sorts of stuff that they don't need to survive or to make more money. So, clearly they have other priorities other than just making money. I posited some things that could factor into their decision-making to explain why they would support political policies that don't maximize their absolute wealth, but may otherwise stroke their egos, or enhance their social power or prestige.

Jack; It's astonishing that more Wall Streeters don't vote for the Democrat. (OR ... maybe they don't subscribe to your Conclusion?)

Another factor to consider is that the return on investment for an individual Wall Streeter isn't just dependent on the rise of stock values. There's also the question of taxes. If I can get a dividend of $100 with 25% taxes, or a dividend of $90 with 10% taxes, I'm better off with the latter. Similarly, a smaller capital runup with lower taxes could be more valuable than a larger one with higher taxes.

There's also the question of timing. If a stock is bouncing up and down dramatically, with no net movement, I could still be getting rich, if I tend to buy low and sell high on those swings. So, I may favor electing the party that is less likely to regulate fraudulent investment schemes and less likely to enforce securities laws. If I'm a big-time Wall-Streeter and I know the Republicans don't really mind how badly I screw over the little guy (e.g., letting me get away with selling bullshit securitized debt obligations into public pensions), then what do I care what happens to the underlying stock values, as long as I'm able to get out before the drops?

Sooooo ... now that we settled that, how long do you think the downturn is going to last? First quarter 2019? Second quarter? End of 2019?

No clue. I guessed the Trump-era market would under-perform the market of Obama and Clinton, just based on a fairly reliable tendency for Republican stock markets to be poor-to-middling. However, I don't have an idea of where in the poor-to-middling range it'll be, much less what the timing will be.

 

[Joe Capitalist]

As further context for how stocks are doing under Trump, here's the annualized real rate of increase for the S&P 500 for each president.

Note, the data starts 1/3/1950, so we're only working with part of Truman's presidency. Also note, there's no inflation data for November of this year available yet, so I just projected forward the average inflation increase for Trump's time one additional month to account for November.

Clinton 12.24%
Obama 11.85%
Truman 11.27%
Eisenhower 9.37%
Bush41 6.43%
Trump 6.10%
Reagan 5.77%
Johnson 4.57%
Kennedy 4.26%
Ford 3.29%
Carter -3.68%
Bush43 -8.37%
Nixon -9.66%

So, as ugly as this market looks, it's actually just mediocre. And considering that the last six Republican-led eras have spanned from mediocre to harrowing, we should probably be happy with mediocre.

You just pissed on all the Trump dick suckers.

Here's another good one:

 

[Oneuli]

You know, I'm starting to think this doesn't really have anything to do with the Stock Market, and more to do with:

a. Oneuli has a 'Democratic Party Agenda' and is using a select group of statistics to further her goals.
b. Oneuli has a 'Get Rich Quick' scheme of 'Market Timing' and is using the JPP Politics Forum to lure in the Rubes here.

Either way, the Shine is starting to rub off this Object. (It's always the ones you least suspect)

Nothing I said suggested market timing. And I didn't cherry-pick stats to try to push a Democratic party agenda. If I'd wanted, for example, I could have done my calculation starting a quarter-century ago, and presented the data with this list:

Clinton 12.24%
Obama 11.85%
Trump 6.10%
Bush43 -8.37%


That would have shown each Democrat as being better than each Republican. And, the weighted average would then have shown that in the average Democrat-led year in that era, stocks rose 12.05%, while in the average Republican-led year, they FELL 5.71%

That kind of cherry-picked comparison would be much more useful for someone looking to push the "Democratic Party Agenda." But, instead, I did an honest comparison, going right back to day one of the S&P 500 -- thereby letting the pathetic numbers of the recent Republicans be pulled up by long-ago Republican eras.

This isn't about cherry-picking propaganda. It's about doing a comprehensive survey of the available information to better inform people. The fact that un-cherry-picked REALITY looks so much like Democratic propaganda should tell you something, shouldn't it?

 

[Oneuli]

It's pretty clear she has a pro-Democrat agenda. I'm a partisan myself so I can't knock others for being like me but you hit on the key point earlier, statistics can be spun many ways to tell a story the author wants to be told.

How about testing that idea? Let's say you wanted to make the case that the stock market tended to grow faster, in real terms, during Republican presidencies. How would you spin the statistics to tell that story?

 

[Jack]

Nothing I said suggested market timing. And I didn't cherry-pick stats to try to push a Democratic party agenda. If I'd wanted, for example, I could have done my calculation starting a quarter-century ago, and presented the data with this list:

Clinton 12.24%
Obama 11.85%
Trump 6.10%
Bush43 -8.37%


That would have shown each Democrat as being better than each Republican. And, the weighted average would then have shown that in the average Democrat-led year in that era, stocks rose 12.05%, while in the average Republican-led year, they FELL 5.71%

That kind of cherry-picked comparison would be much more useful for someone looking to push the "Democratic Party Agenda." But, instead, I did an honest comparison, going right back to day one of the S&P 500 -- thereby letting the pathetic numbers of the recent Republicans be pulled up by long-ago Republican eras.

This isn't about cherry-picking propaganda. It's about doing a comprehensive survey of the available information to better inform people. The fact that un-cherry-picked REALITY looks so much like Democratic propaganda should tell you something, shouldn't it?

Thanks for the effort here. I doubt your exhaustive work will convince anyone (like the Righties here) that they are better off with a Democrat as President. I know someone that bought a subsidized house through a Government Program for low-income people, was on and off of Food Stamps, and qualified for Medicaid ... HE ALWAYS VOTES REPUBLICAN!
One day, I brought this up, you know, tried to query him how he could justify his voting for the conservative Republicans that were always trying to cut aid for the Poor. His answer: "That's just the way I feel".

I think it's 'genetic'. I can understand Rich People voting Republican, I can understand Poor People voting for the Democrats. It bogles the mind that Poor People vote for people (Republicans) that are literally trying to take food out of their children's mouth. There's no rhyme or reason, no logic, nothing 'sensible'. I'm convinced that no matter how much evidence provided, no matter how clear it is that a certain Policy will be detrimental for them and their Family, that they will continue to vote on their 'gut feeling'. It's genetic in my opinion and I waste no time in trying to convince them otherwise.
I will bet you that there are 'Poor People' here on JPP that argue FOR the Conservative Narrative. (Who's that guy that tries to push a giant rock up a hill? Anyway, ... why waste your precious time on a 'rock'?)

 

[CFM]

Thanks for the effort here. I doubt your exhaustive work will convince anyone (like the Righties here) that they are better off with a Democrat as President. I know someone that bought a subsidized house through a Government Program for low-income people, was on and off of Food Stamps, and qualified for Medicaid ... HE ALWAYS VOTES REPUBLICAN!
One day, I brought this up, you know, tried to query him how he could justify his voting for the conservative Republicans that were always trying to cut aid for the Poor. His answer: "That's just the way I feel".

I think it's 'genetic'. I can understand Rich People voting Republican, I can understand Poor People voting for the Democrats. It bogles the mind that Poor People vote for people (Republicans) that are literally trying to take food out of their children's mouth. There's no rhyme or reason, no logic, nothing 'sensible'. I'm convinced that no matter how much evidence provided, no matter how clear it is that a certain Policy will be detrimental for them and their Family, that they will continue to vote on their 'gut feeling'. It's genetic in my opinion and I waste no time in trying to convince them otherwise.
I will bet you that there are 'Poor People' here on JPP that argue FOR the Conservative Narrative. (Who's that guy that tries to push a giant rock up a hill? Anyway, ... why waste your precious time on a 'rock'?)

You know someone? Bullshit. Do you have an audio/video recording of the event? If not, it didn't happen.

No one is trying to take food out of the mouths of the children of poor people. All that is being expected is that the people that produced the kids be responsible for the choices they made. Why is that so bad? I thought what a woman did with her body was her choice. Why isn't it her responsibility to fund the results of that choice? Why does a private decision become the responsibility of the public when the one that told others to butt out of her choice can't afford it?

I don't vote gut feeling. I vote what has benefited me and will continue to do so.

 

[Oneuli]

Thanks for the effort here. I doubt your exhaustive work will convince anyone (like the Righties here) that they are better off with a Democrat as President.

The problem with my approach, when it comes to convincing people, is that I argue based on facts and figures, which are entirely beside the point from a right-wing perspective. As Stephen Colbert once famously pointed out, the important thing from their perspective isn't whether something is true, but rather whether it feels "truthy" -- whether it hits them in the gut as a satisfactory way for the world to work.

No amount of data is going to change their minds. Just look at climate change, for example. In the past 20 years the mountain of data supporting the general outlines of the IPCC position on climate change has grown larger and larger, resulting in an even larger portion of the experts echoing their conclusions. Yet, in that same 20-year period, the right-wingers have moved the exact opposite direction as the expert community, by becoming increasingly convinced that the consensus view is the result of some sort of bizarrely improbable international conspiracy of scientists. If armies of thousands of some of the smartest people in the world, working full time, can't penetrate the gut-level willful ignorance of the right, what hope does someone like me have of doing so?

It bogles the mind that Poor People vote for people (Republicans) that are literally trying to take food out of their children's mouth.

Yes. A rich Republican may be heartless, but you can't necessarily claim he's stupid and self-victimizing. He can be making a reasonable bet (albeit not a certain one), that the GOP will be better for him overall. A poor Republican, though, is basically voting to screw himself hard, just for the opportunity to screw his neighbors.

 

[Truth Detector]

You know, I'm starting to think this doesn't really have anything to do with the Stock Market, and more to do with:

a. Oneuli has a 'Democratic Party Agenda' and is using a select group of statistics to further her goals.
b. Oneuli has a 'Get Rich Quick' scheme of 'Market Timing' and is using the JPP Politics Forum to lure in the Rubes here.

Either way, the Shine is starting to rub off this Object. (It's always the ones you least suspect)

You crack me up dude!

 

[Jack]

You know someone? Bullshit. Do you have an audio/video recording of the event? If not, it didn't happen.

No one is trying to take food out of the mouths of the children of poor people. All that is being expected is that the people that produced the kids be responsible for the choices they made. Why is that so bad? I thought what a woman did with her body was her choice. Why isn't it her responsibility to fund the results of that choice? Why does a private decision become the responsibility of the public when the one that told others to butt out of her choice can't afford it?

I don't vote gut feeling. I vote what has benefited me and will continue to do so.

I was just recounting an experience that I had many years ago. I'd known this guy for quite awhile, off and on. I saw him qualify for this house in a 'government sub-division', that was 3 bedroom, bath and a half. It was small but had a yard, paved sidewalks, and underground Utilities. He would be classified as the 'Working Poor'. They calculated his Mortgage on how much he made, which was a little over Minimum Wage. He was driving around in a used 10 year old car, but after a few years, both he and his wife were able to buy 2 new cars. He was unskilled and didn't have a HS Diploma. He would be out of work every few years, but would always find something else, he didn't mind going to work every day. They had two kids and depending on what job he had, he would qualify for Food Stamps and Medicaid. They and their kids lived the 'American Dream' of Home Ownership.
One day we were talking and he mentioned his conservative/Republican bent, it happened over a few years, he would mention his dislike of 'Democrats' and 'Liberals'. Probably 5 or 10 years down the line, after we were pretty good acquaintances, I asked him if he was aware of all the 'government' perks and subsidies that he was using? I'm not sure if it really registered with him or he felt entitled or owed or what, but he just flat out told me he just felt all the Government hand outs were wrong.

hahahahaha ... sooooo. Here's a guy taking advantage of all the Government services he can, ... but saying he thinks it is wrong.
He's a low-skilled, low-wage earner, granted a Middle-Class life-style for him and his Family, through Progressive Policies for the Working Poor. But he's a die-hard conservative that votes consistently against these very Programs.

My conclusion: 'Genetics'.

 

[cawacko]

Thanks for the effort here. I doubt your exhaustive work will convince anyone (like the Righties here) that they are better off with a Democrat as President. I know someone that bought a subsidized house through a Government Program for low-income people, was on and off of Food Stamps, and qualified for Medicaid ... HE ALWAYS VOTES REPUBLICAN!
One day, I brought this up, you know, tried to query him how he could justify his voting for the conservative Republicans that were always trying to cut aid for the Poor. His answer: "That's just the way I feel".

I think it's 'genetic'. I can understand Rich People voting Republican, I can understand Poor People voting for the Democrats. It bogles the mind that Poor People vote for people (Republicans) that are literally trying to take food out of their children's mouth. There's no rhyme or reason, no logic, nothing 'sensible'. I'm convinced that no matter how much evidence provided, no matter how clear it is that a certain Policy will be detrimental for them and their Family, that they will continue to vote on their 'gut feeling'. It's genetic in my opinion and I waste no time in trying to convince them otherwise.
I will bet you that there are 'Poor People' here on JPP that argue FOR the Conservative Narrative. (Who's that guy that tries to push a giant rock up a hill? Anyway, ... why waste your precious time on a 'rock'?)

I'll speak for myself here. How I vote doesn't have to do with how the stock market performs. I didn't vote for Gary Johnson because of the stock market.

I also don't buy the argument that poor people must vote Democratic. The argument essentially goes Democrats will offer you more government programs, thus it's in your self interest to vote for them. We can look at the War on Poverty and the trillions spent that government poverty programs aren't always the answer and in fact can exacerbate the problem.

I see Oneli uses the often heard line that Republicans have no heart and Democrats of course care about the little people. Well I can tell you from living in the Bay Area for over 30 years that Democrats can have a "fvck you, I've got mine" attitude just as easily as anyone else. It goes back to we like to ascribe the best virtues to those who agree with us and worse vices to those who don't.

 

[Jack]

I can't tell you how much I am in agreement with your post here.

The problem with my approach, when it comes to convincing people, is that I argue based on facts and figures, which are entirely beside the point from a right-wing perspective. As Stephen Colbert once famously pointed out, the important thing from their perspective isn't whether something is true, but rather whether it feels "truthy" -- whether it hits them in the gut as a satisfactory way for the world to work.

No amount of data is going to change their minds. Just look at climate change, for example. In the past 20 years the mountain of data supporting the general outlines of the IPCC position on climate change has grown larger and larger, resulting in an even larger portion of the experts echoing their conclusions. Yet, in that same 20-year period, the right-wingers have moved the exact opposite direction as the expert community, by becoming increasingly convinced that the consensus view is the result of some sort of bizarrely improbable international conspiracy of scientists. If armies of thousands of some of the smartest people in the world, working full time, can't penetrate the gut-level willful ignorance of the right, what hope does someone like me have of doing so?



Yes. A rich Republican may be heartless, but you can't necessarily claim he's stupid and self-victimizing. He can be making a reasonable bet (albeit not a certain one), that the GOP will be better for him overall. A poor Republican, though, is basically voting to screw himself hard, just for the opportunity to screw his neighbors.

 

[floridafan]

I'll speak for myself here. How I vote doesn't have to do with how the stock market performs. I didn't vote for Gary Johnson because of the stock market.

I also don't buy the argument that poor people must vote Democratic. The argument essentially goes Democrats will offer you more government programs, thus it's in your self interest to vote for them. We can look at the War on Poverty and the trillions spent that government poverty programs aren't always the answer and in fact can exacerbate the problem.

I see Oneli uses the often heard line that Republicans have no heart and Democrats of course care about the little people. Well I can tell you from living in the Bay Area for over 30 years that Democrats can have a "fvck you, I've got mine" attitude just as easily as anyone else. It goes back to we like to ascribe the best virtues to those who agree with us and worse vices to those who don't.

How about the "war on Drugs", wanna talk about that?

 

[cawacko]

The problem with my approach, when it comes to convincing people, is that I argue based on facts and figures, which are entirely beside the point from a right-wing perspective. As Stephen Colbert once famously pointed out, the important thing from their perspective isn't whether something is true, but rather whether it feels "truthy" -- whether it hits them in the gut as a satisfactory way for the world to work.

No amount of data is going to change their minds. Just look at climate change, for example. In the past 20 years the mountain of data supporting the general outlines of the IPCC position on climate change has grown larger and larger, resulting in an even larger portion of the experts echoing their conclusions. Yet, in that same 20-year period, the right-wingers have moved the exact opposite direction as the expert community, by becoming increasingly convinced that the consensus view is the result of some sort of bizarrely improbable international conspiracy of scientists. If armies of thousands of some of the smartest people in the world, working full time, can't penetrate the gut-level willful ignorance of the right, what hope does someone like me have of doing so?



Yes. A rich Republican may be heartless, but you can't necessarily claim he's stupid and self-victimizing. He can be making a reasonable bet (albeit not a certain one), that the GOP will be better for him overall. A poor Republican, though, is basically voting to screw himself hard, just for the opportunity to screw his neighbors.

Since you want to talk about facts it continually needs to be pointed out how much (or little) the President has over the stock market. If we know what we know now you would still argue for people to vote for Obama in '08 even though we had the worst recovery since the Great Recession because the Fed pumped three rounds of QE and the stock market reacted accordingly.

I suggest you visit the NIMBY's in San Francisco and the Bay Area if you want to call others heartless.

 

[cawacko]

How about the "war on Drugs", wanna talk about that?

Ok. Feel free to state why you feel its important in the context of this discussion.

 

[floridafan]

Ok. Feel free to state why you feel its important in the context of this discussion.

You mentioned the war on poverty and its waste, so how about discussing the massive waste on the republican war on drugs?

 

[Truth Detector]

Nothing I said suggested market timing. And I didn't cherry-pick stats to try to push a Democratic party agenda. If I'd wanted, for example, I could have done my calculation starting a quarter-century ago, and presented the data with this list:

Clinton 12.24%
Obama 11.85%
Trump 6.10%
Bush43 -8.37%


That would have shown each Democrat as being better than each Republican. And, the weighted average would then have shown that in the average Democrat-led year in that era, stocks rose 12.05%, while in the average Republican-led year, they FELL 5.71%

That kind of cherry-picked comparison would be much more useful for someone looking to push the "Democratic Party Agenda." But, instead, I did an honest comparison, going right back to day one of the S&P 500 -- thereby letting the pathetic numbers of the recent Republicans be pulled up by long-ago Republican eras.

This isn't about cherry-picking propaganda. It's about doing a comprehensive survey of the available information to better inform people. The fact that un-cherry-picked REALITY looks so much like Democratic propaganda should tell you something, shouldn't it?

There is nothing "honest" attempting to compare the terms of Republicans who served for four and less than two years respectively with Democrats serving for eight years and argue that Democrats did better snowflake.

So the Party of the Jackass wants credit for Wall Street fat cats getting fatter? Seriously? PRICELESS!!

on October 9, 2007, closing at 14,164.43

 

[cawacko]

You mentioned the war on poverty and its waste, so how about discussing the massive waste on the republican war on drugs?

start a thread and I'd be glad to discuss it. It has nothing to do with what's being discussed now