We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, July 19. 2018
I was reminded about how much the American press loved Trump until he was nominated, and thought about how much the American press and intelligentsia loved Russia until Trump. The Dems, Obama and Clinton, wanted to cozy up. Then I thought about how much the American left hated the FBI and the DOJ until Trump.
You get the feeling that Trump is living rent-free in a lot of heads, and controlling their brains. Mind games.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The first I ever heard of Trump was in the mid-80s, when he was disgusted over the City of NY's fumbling with an over-budget behind-schedule skating rink he could see them trying to build down in Central Park every day. Over the years he gave interviews from time to time musing about what it might take to make him disgusted enough to run for president, and how sure he was he could make a go of it. I suspect he's still disgusted now, but not particularly upset. He'll probably just keep charging ahead.
Texan99, I too recall the skating rink debacle.
New Yorks "Parks Department embarked on a total refurbishment of the facility in 1980, estimating it would take two years to complete. After six years and having flushed $13 million down the drain, the city announced they would have to start all over again and it would take another two years to complete.
Enter the Donald. In late May of 1986, the 39-year-old Trump made an offer to Mayor Ed Koch. Trump would step in and take over the construction and operation of the project for no profit and have it up and running in time for the holiday season. Koch tried mightily and quite sneakily tried to reject Trump’s offer.
Trump finished the job in just four months at a final cost 25% below the budget."
"He is a tough and smart negotiator. He sizes up his opponent, and he knows that the approach that works best for one is not the same as for another. It does not matter what he says publicly about his negotiating opponent. What matters is what results months later. In his first eighteen months in Washington, this man has turned around the American economy, brought us near full employment, reduced the welfare and food stamp lines, wiped out ISIS in Raqqa, moved America’s Israel embassy to Jerusalem, successfully has launched massive deregulation of the economy, has opened oil exploration in ANWR, is rebuilding the military massively, has walked out of the useless Paris Climate Accords that were negotiated by America’s amateurs who always get snookered, canned the disastrous Iran Deal, exited the bogus United Nations Human Rights Council. He has Canada and Mexico convinced he will walk out of NAFTA if they do not pony up, and he has the Europeans convinced he will walk out of NATO if they don’t stop being the cheap and lazy parasitic penny-pinchers they are. He has slashed income taxes, expanded legal protections for college students falsely accused of crimes, has taken real steps to protect religious freedoms and liberties promised in the First Amendment, boldly has taken on the lyme-disease-quality of a legislative mess that he inherited from Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama on immigration, and has appointed a steady line of remarkably brilliant conservative federal judges to sit on the district courts, the circuit appellate courts, and the Supreme Court.
What has Anderson Cooper achieved during that period? Jim Acosta or the editorial staffs of the New York Times and Washington Post? They have not even found the courage and strength to stand up to the coworkers and celebrities within their orbits who abuse sexually or psychologically or emotionally. They have no accomplishments to compare to his. Just their effete opinions, all echoing each other, all echoing, echoing, echoing. They gave us eight years of Nobel Peace Laureate Obama negotiating with the ISIS JV team, calming the rise of the oceans, and healing the planet.
We will take Trump negotiating with Putin any day."
jake: this man has turned around the American economy
jake: brought us near full employment
But, sniff ..., Hillary, ... sniff ..., Hillary won the popular vote!
Bill Carson: Hillary won the popular vote!
Not sure how that's relevant. The claim is that Trump "turned around the American economy". In fact, it's difficult from looking at real GDP or U3 unemployment to tell when Trump took office. There's no "turn" in the trend. However, it's easy from looking at the same data to see an abrupt turn-around shortly after Obama took office.
The trust I have in government statistics is even less than the trust I have in Strozk's FBI. They have not tracked the numbers of employees that just fell off the employment list nor how many of those showed up on the disability list. How many are coming back off the disability list? How many are now mandated to work to get welfare benefits compared to the administration that dropped work requirements?
indyjonesouthere: They have not tracked the numbers of employees that just fell off the employment list
Of course they have. Labor force participation had been dropping since 2000, then stabilized in 2014.
Wrong, trolling CS-SR(s), as has been pointed out to your gigantic cyclopsian monochromatic green eyeball before, to no avail. Stats methodology changes, generally for political advantage.
In fact, it's difficult from looking at real GDP or U3 unemployment to tell when Trump took office. There's no "turn" in the trend.
Changing the the time scale to hide the obvious transition @ Q1 2017. Nice try! Why not make the vertical axis run from $0 $20T - that will hide the Trump factor of 1.7 even more! C'mon, aim high!
Bill Carson: Changing the the time scale to hide the obvious transition @ Q1 2017.
The slope at Q1 2017 is similar to other sections of the graph from 2008 to present, and is not remarkable. Indeed, some periods during the Obama-era have higher slopes.
Maybe the Clattering Soros-Schlansky Robot(s) doesn't know how to read charts.
And though I can't stand Hillary's politics, and she's the first female candidate to ever lose a US Presidential election, I must confess that, through her innovative use of chemtrails, she realized Reverend Martin Luther King's dream on behalf of countless vertically-challenged gypsies.
Methinks you're on to something, Jake ...
Real GDP per capita:
Q4 2008 $47,697
Q4 2016 $51,916
Q1 2018 $53,056
Obama: ($51,916 - $47,697) / 8 yr = $527/yr
Trump: ($53,056 - $51,916) / 1.25 yr = $912/yr
Advantage: Trump by a factor of 1.7 (70% better).
Bill Carson: Advantage: Trump by a factor of 1.7 (70% better).
You're a bit off on your math, which should be based on exponents, though in this case it doesn't change the result by that much.
The economy was shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs when Obama took office, and that was hardly his fault, while Trump inherited a growing economy. You might want to start the comparison at the bottom of the cycle, which was Q2 2009. Then, using the proper calculations, Obama's record was 1.45% per year, while Trump's is 1.75% per year so far. If this can be sustained, then it will be significant.
Interestingly, from Q2 2009 to Q3 2010, the same time period as Trump so far, growth was 1.87%.
"You're a bit off on your math ..."
No need for exponentials: the GDP per capita had one value at one time and had another some # of quarters later - I calculated average rates of change based upon quarterly data. Sure, if one wishes to model gdp per capita time series, exponential functions will be involved. But, if those models faithfully reproduce the reported FED data, they'll yield the same average rates of change (and be able to tell us values between those reported quarterly). In other words, exponential are irrelevant to the point being made and are a red herring in this context.
"Interestingly, from Q2 2009 to Q3 2010, the same time period as Trump so far, growth was 1.87%."
Not as interesting as you think: Decent growth after the Dems tanked the market in autumn was a given.
Oh, and you're welcome for changing your focus from GDP to GDP per capita.
But all of this is just dicking around. That $10T that Obama had to play with can't be ignored, and huge debts, deficits, and quantitative easing have to be folded in to any "goodness of the economy" metric to provide the full picture, but how to do so escapes me.
Don't forget "Quantitative Easing" by the Fed and the tremendous growth of fracking in the U.S.
Bill Carson: No need for exponentials: the GDP per capita had one value at one time and had another some # of quarters later
Of course you should use exponentials when looking at rates of growth. The correct formula for annual growth rate over an eight year period is not the absolute change divided by the number of years. It's the eighth root of the ratio (minus one). That's because a 1% increase when the value is $1 is significantly different from when the value is $10. As the change in per capita GDP is not so large, the exponential curve is close to linear, but not exact, and will diverge as the ratio increases. In this case, instead of 70%, the correct value is 65%.
Bill Carson: Decent growth after the Dems tanked the market in autumn was a given.
The bubble in mortgage securities was fully formed in 2006, during a period of Republican control of government.
Bill Carson: Oh, and you're welcome for changing your focus from GDP to GDP per capita.
They're both important. GDP per capita had the advantage of helping determine whether the economy is becoming more productive, rather than just adding workers.
Bill Carson: That $10T that Obama had to play with can't be ignored
The stimulus was only $0.8 trillion. If you are referring to quantitative easing, that was the Fed, which was responding to the lack of sufficient fiscal action due to government dysfunction. The Fed balance sheet went from about $1 trillion to $4.5 trillion, so it was a difference of about $3.5 trillion.
Yes, the FED which Obama had no control over and fracking which Obama tried to shut down had more to do with the recovery than any of Obama's bailout programs...
Nevermind that Obama added an extra trillion of borrowed money to the debt in his first few months in office with little to show for it but continued to borrow another 8-9 trillion for the rest of his term.
How does losing feel, kiddiez?
Fine. Fine. He's done all that.
But what has he done for me lately?
Everyday!!!! I celebrate that Hillary is NOT president. That is just one of the things Trump does for me daily.
Oh yeah, he also triggers Zach.
Ask yourself who would be the 3 supreme court justices right now if Hillary had been elected? I say 3 b/c if Hillary had won, Ruth Bader Ginsberg would step down eventually so Hill could replace her.
Looks at paycheck. Smiles.
Looks at 401k, smiles even more.
Looks at wife's 403B - smiles even wider.
No, I'm NOT tired of winning!
JLawson: Looks at paycheck. Smiles.
Real wages started to grow in 2014 as the economy moved towards full capacity, so that trend predates Trump.
JLawson: Looks at 401k, smiles even more.
The stock market has grown marginally faster under Trump than under Obama. Of course, the federal government borrowed $2 trillion for tax cuts, so that would be expected to have some stimulatory effect.
This is the only coherent comment in this thread.
1. The "economy" as it's referred to, is overwhelmingly affected by monetary policy.
2. GDP is not an comprehensive indicator because, among other things, it does not isolate monetary factors.
3. Employment is not an comprehensive indicator. Stop repeating the myth.
4. Arguing about any of the above, save monetary movement, is folly. Stop it. Don't be a Clattering Soros-Schlansky Robot(s) yourself.
Look what's really going on: http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Look what's really going on: http://www.usdebtclock.org/"
So, we're screwed in a fundamental sense, and could as easily have an economy in alignment with this level of screwed-ness as the one we currently have (which obscures - in a non-comprehensive manner - how screwed we are), right?
indyjonesouthere: Obama added a 10 trillion "stimulus".
The Obama stimulus, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, was $0.8 trillion spread over several years.
Ask the CS-SR(s), in all its OCD factoidness, what trillions QE has injected into this purported economy of ours.
And you'll get back silence. The CS-SR(s), in all its OCD factoidness, is fundamentally a denialist 'bot, a partisan hack, and likely a paid tool.
Well, don't know what happened there... got a Spam Prevention message.
Some of this Russia hysteria is just beyond absurd. Everyone is frothing at the mouth about the suggestion that Russian investigators should be allowed to come to the U.S. to interview those who apparently made illegal campaign contributions of Russian money to the Hillary campaign, and Putin invited the Mueller team to come to Russia to interview the alleged Russian interferers. (Of course Mueller will absolutely not do that.)
Someone should point out that this is already covered by a specific treaty between Russia and the U.S. on cooperation on law enforcement and international criminal matters, which was ratified by the Senate in 2001 on the recommendation of President Bill Clinton. (Putin made reference to this treaty during his remarks.)
So when everyone is moaning about Trump "betraying the country" by considering doing this, they are totally full of crap. This is already spelled out in the law.
Jim: Some of this Russia hysteria is just beyond absurd. Everyone is frothing at the mouth about the suggestion that Russian investigators should be allowed to come to the U.S. to interview those who apparently made illegal campaign contributions of Russian money to the Hillary campaign
You'll apparently believe any misinformation that Putin throws your way.
indyjonesouthere: Don't forget the 17 intelligence agencies.
There is more than sufficient public evidence to conclude Russian hacking, including the URL used to hack Podesta which wasn't properly screened, and a problem with Guccifer 2.0's VPN which revealed his actual location.
There was collusion with Russia during the election. Hillary and the Democrats hired Russian agents to create a dossier intended to show that Trump had committed crimes and/or indiscretions in or with Russia. There is your collusion. But Mueller is not investigating this, in fact Mueller's investigation of Trump on fake charges is intended to prevent an investigation on Hillary as the clock runs down on her crimes. This coverup itself may well be the crime of this century and we have a front seat to it.
Pay no attention to what Trump says. It has an inexact relationship with what he is going to do. You can say that is for good reasons or bad, but it is so.
Pay attention to what he does only.
Assistant Village Idiot: Pay no attention to what Trump says.
That's a nice, pretty idea that allows you to ignore Trump's rhetoric, but he is the President of the United States. His words matter.
When Trump comforts autocrats, it gives them license, and disheartens friends of freedom. When he attacks long-time allies, it leads to a fracturing of trust. When he denies plain fact, he undermines the truth.
...luckily for Trump there is a difference between words versus actions. Action-wise, Trump has been tougher on Russia than former president Obama or even Bush 43. From the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats following the poisoning in Britain, to the countless sanctions levied on Russia to the sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, to increased U.S. oil production, to calls for more NATO defense spending, Trump has been extremely tough on Russia. To say otherwise just isn’t true,” the analyst said.
you're misleading again, kiddiez.
" ... and disheartens friends of freedom"
Well, we can't have that, now can we?!? Hold on, I'll go light a candle to cheer those friends up.
P.S. Does your collective consist mainly of confused middle school girls? Asking for a friend.
Bill Carson: Well, we can't have that, now can we?!?
Rhetoric can matter, a lot.
We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate.
Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! — Ronald Reagan, U.S. President
Really scrambling for about anything now, huh, kiddiez?
Shows you're losing the argument again.
And one can only wonder why the President doesn't trust the IC...
Is the New York Times using extremely compromised, biased sources (such as Comey, Clapper, and Brennan) to provide anonymous “intelligence” that promotes an unproven, hysterical narrative intended to damage the president’s legitimacy? It sure seems like it.
Mr. Mueller has indicted 12 Russians for interfering, meddling, intruding, compromising and colluding or something like that, They apparently invaded the computers of the DNC, RNC (not mentioned) Podesta's computers and Hillary's servers which were wide open to anyone. So what is it that they did beside look? Hack voting machines, publish false information, propaganda, hack the ballot counting? We know that the Democrats encouraged illegal aliens to vote, allowed people to vote in 2 states in which they had residences, found lots of dead people to vote. So what is it that these indicted Russians did to meddle ? And how did it influence the vote?
I learned today that a woman who lives in CT is running for the Alaskan Legislature, as a Democrat of course, but has never visited Alaska.
The Elephant's Child: They apparently invaded the computers of the DNC, RNC (not mentioned) Podesta's computers and Hillary's servers which were wide open to anyone. So what is it that they did beside look?
They released the stolen data to cause maximum political damage to the Clinton campaign. They also attacked state election systems, and while there is no evidence they changed any votes, a future attack could cause even more widespread damage to American democracy.
Emphasis on there is no evidence they changed any votes
That's correct, kiddiez.
Probably the only correct observation in your comment.
^ The propaganda arm of the CS-SR(s) speaks anew.
The close timing of the DNC announcement and Guccifer 2.0’s publication of the Trump report, as well as reports of “Russian fingerprints” in those documents, created a strong link between Guccifer 2.0 and the Russian hackers who allegedly stole DNC files. Over a year later, the Associated Press tells us that this first narrative was wrong, contradicting the DNC’s claims as well as much of the early legacy press reports on the issue.[/url] Must we concurrently accept the narrative that Russians hacked the DNC if claims that they had done so were not only based on flimsy evidence but have now been contradicted completely?
As far as documented evidence of election interference goes, one does not have to stray far from the actors in the Russian hacking saga to discover that [b]the DNC and establishment Democrats were, instead of victims of meddling, the perpetrators of such abuse of the American Democratic process. In 2017 the NYC Board of Elections admitted that it had illegally purged hundreds of thousands of Democratic voters from the election roles, preventing them from voting in the 2016 Democratic primaries. This abuse of power represents just one in a constellation of legitimate examples of abuse that took place at the hands of corporatized Democrats in order to unfairly and illegally ensure a Clinton nomination.
Though Boomer retirement could have started as early as 2007, the economic meltdown accelerated it. By 2012, it would have really got rolling, by an anticipated @300K jobs per month. Note that this is freeing up good jobs not short term, dead end, service jobs, like we saw after 2008.
Hey, you know if there was a way to effectively manipulate elections, enough to make a difference, the Dems would be doing it.
Just my opinion, I think that the Russians have been trying, along with other countries, to influence the American electorate for decades. They are/were no more successful than anyone else; it is like pissing in the Ocean. It is to laugh.