toddzrx

GeorgeBMac said:

comment said:

SpamSandwich said:

And the benefits, regardless of party affiliation, will be across the board.

Yeah, but so will the negatives.

I don't live in the US, so no affiliation to either political party. But this tax plan puts an awful lot of hope and stock in the fact that these kind of investments will counter the fact that it makes the deficit skyrocket even further. Risky politics at least, some would argue that it just short-term politics (I'm inclined to think the latter as well, also considering the other actions of this administration).

On-topic: it fits Trump to take full credit for this, and any other president would probably done at least partly the same. Of course, another president would have done this in a more subtle manner, but hey, subtility isn't Trump's middle name (and I think everyone knows that by now...   ).

But there ARE benefits:
-- The rich will get richer
-- Corporations get to increase their stock buy backs & dividends with our money
-- Paul Ryan will get to justify gutting Medicare and Social Security using our additional $1.5T deficit.
-- Private industry will get to buy up national infrastructure now that we can't afford to maintain it.
-- The middle class gets to feel good about the pennies that DaffyDon threw to them...

comment said:

SpamSandwich said:

And the benefits, regardless of party affiliation, will be across the board.

Yeah, but so will the negatives.

I don't live in the US, so no affiliation to either political party. But this tax plan puts an awful lot of hope and stock in the fact that these kind of investments will counter the fact that it makes the deficit skyrocket even further. Risky politics at least, some would argue that it just short-term politics (I'm inclined to think the latter as well, also considering the other actions of this administration).

On-topic: it fits Trump to take full credit for this, and any other president would probably done at least partly the same. Of course, another president would have done this in a more subtle manner, but hey, subtility isn't Trump's middle name (and I think everyone knows that by now...   ).

launfall said:

I don't for a minute think that Apple was trying to make obsolete their older iPhones. What I do believe is that Apple still suffers from the same hubris that has plagued the company since it's creation. You don't deliberately create a problem for a customer's phone because you think it's good for them.  You spell out what the update does in highly visible plain English and provide them with the means to disable the modification. Over the years I have spent well over $100,000 on Apple products, starting with the 2GS, and it has infuriated me that Apple, seemingly on a whim, will remove a product feature, only to restore it when the shit hits the fan. This "we know what's best for you" hubris is in the DNA of Apple, put there by Jobs and perpetuated by Cook.  Hopefully this slap in the face, and shareholder wrath, will wake Cook up and Apple will be a better company for it.  They deserve the opprobrium they are currently receiving and you can lay that squarely at Cook's doorstep. A CEO's job is to NOT devalue the company, and he has done just that.

schlack said:

I guess minor is relative. If they keep the price the same but replace the A9 era processor with an A11, more RAM, and more storage, that would be a pretty major upgrade to the phone.