| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/pelos i_strong_employment_numbers_mean_little.html I started bit$%ing about the unemployment numbers being bogus during the Bush the Younger regime. Blake & I crossed swords on the issue. That's my claim for hipster cred.  Also I had a beard before it was cool & other metrics...  but so do a lot of motorcycle riders, something to do with moving through cold air at speed. ( Actually, any claims to hipster cred I have are ironic and thus even more hipster! A matter of amusement and shame, really ) The IMPORTANT number is the over 200,000 people who got jobs last month. Not the bogus 3.8% number. Less bogus than Obama era numbers, but still bogus. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.aei.org/publication/how-would-we-know-i f-north-korea-really-wants-peace/ | ||
| Tootal |
I was listening to a political talk show this morning and a caller went off on the host about Trump claiming the record Wall Street numbers were because of him when in fact they were climbing though out BO's reign. I have to agree with the caller but it was BO's policy to print money and feed the system that kept Wall Street happy. Trump has been weening us off of this and that's why the market as reset itself. We are now seeing a truer view of the economy instead of a enhanced version. Quantitative easing only slows down a recovery and kills the strength of the dollar. | ||
| Fb1 |
Source, more: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/upshot/we-ran-o ut-of-words-to-describe-how-good-the-jobs-numbers- are.html Interesting seeing these words in the New York Slimes; consider my noodle baked. | ||
| Fb1 |
National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow discusses jobs and economics report: https://youtu.be/bLuccCq3wcM (Message edited by fb1 on June 02, 2018) | ||
| Fb1 |
https://twitter.com/FoxBusiness/status/10025335845 47274753 | ||
| Fb1 |
Source, more: https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/stephen-moore/s tephen-moore-mojo-trumponomics | ||
| Aesquire |
By now we all know the joke that ends "The headlines all read, "Trump Can't Swim"" Recycled from the Bush era, and probably John Adams's. What I find amazing is the lack of post economic announcement adjustments in the news. The government office that announces this stuff always goes with the early reports, to put it out to the press in a timely manner. Always, the later reports are not as rosy, and for the Barry regime, you'd get the story on page 9, buried under the silver predictions, telling us that the growth rate wasn't really 2.4%, but only 1.3%, after they'd checked the math and got all the paperwork in. During the Bush years, the adjustment to the early news was on page one, although usually below the fold. The News always brought it up every time, since it was a "sign" that "the Bush White House Was Eeeeevil". ( never mind that back to whenever they started doing these reports, Clinton back to ??Buchanan? ( feel free to look it up ) it's always the same. Here's the numbers! then a week later, Here's the real numbers. ) I'd expect the corrections to be accompanied by the "it was a "sign" that "the Trump White House Was Eeeeevil"" reporting, but i seem to miss it. I assume it's there, just drowned out by the daily seizures from a tweet. | ||
| Fb1 |
What I find amazing is the lack of post economic announcement adjustments in the news. The government office that announces this stuff always goes with the early reports, to put it out to the press in a timely manner. Always, the later reports are not as rosy, and for the Barry regime, you'd get the story on page 9, buried under the silver predictions, telling us that the growth rate wasn't really 2.4%, but only 1.3%, after they'd checked the math and got all the paperwork in. I was going to make a similar comment earlier, but chores beckoned and I left the thought unsaid. 0's initial numbers would always be positive (and would be BLEATED REPEATEDLY AT THE TOP OF THEIR LUNGS by the MSM toadies), and then, as you say, would be later downgraded (in a hushed whisper on page 9) to something closer to the truth. That graph that Hogwash posted is a stunning indictment against the economic policies of our former pResident. | ||
| H0gwash |
If the former president is accused of ensuring that wall street would survive the subprime loan collapse then yes he is guilty. https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/analysis-says- trump-budget-wont-curb-deficits-as-promised Trump Trillion-Dollar Budget Deficits Officially Begin This Week Stan Collender April 8, 2018 The new U.S. normal of $1 trillion or more annual federal budget deficits will officially begin this week when the Congressional Budget Office releases its economic and budget outlook report showing that the deficit will be at least that high every year Donald Trump is president. Although there have been private sector projections for months (including my post from last October) that the government's red ink will hit and exceed a trillion dollars for years to come, this will be the first report by Congress's official budget watchdog since last year's big tax cut and this year's spending deal were enacted that will show the deficit rising precipitously and staying at that very high level through the next ten years. The official CBO projections are likely to be lower than the budget deficits that actually occur. CBO's report is based on current law and makes no political judgements about what Congress and the president will do in the future. That means the deficit projections will be based on the presumption that the tax cuts enacted last year that currently phase out will in fact end. That means the CBO forecast will assume that future revenues will be higher and the deficit lower compared to what is likely to occur. The same is true for spending. For this report, the Congressional Budget Office doesn't presume that any of the reductions proposed in the Trump 2019 budget will be enacted. That will increase the deficit outlook compared to what the White House will say it will be. For the record (and before the trolls come out to play), there were indeed four consecutive trillion-dollar federal deficits during the Obama administration from fiscal 2009-12. Those deficits were primarily caused by the Great Recession and were temporary. By contrast, the trillion-dollar Trump deficits are permanent changes to the federal budget outlook caused by enacted reductions in revenues and increases in spending. The Trump deficits assume a relatively high level of economic growth. If the economic outlook doesn't turn out to be as rosy as the White House is promising, the very high Trump-era federal budget deficits will be even higher. page 2 continues at https://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2018/04/08/trump-trillion-dollar-budget-deficits-officially-begin-this-week/2/#746c605d1f66 (Message edited by h0gwash on June 02, 2018) | ||
| Julie |
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-in-memo-to-mue ller-trumps-lawyers-argue-he-could-not-have-obstru cted-justice/ This is downright un-American. The Trump premise that the Trump lawyers are presenting here is that the President cannot obstruct justice. The same lawyers have also posited that the previous President Obama planted spies in the Trump campaign. Therefore, their argument is that since the President cannot obstruct justice, then it was completely legal for Obama to plant spies within the Trump campaign. This just further proves that the white house is occupied by a bunch of weak, pathetic, lying Russian-sponsored terrorist spies that have attacked TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOTIC FREEDOM!!!! The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing. | ||
| Ebutch |
 | ||
| Aesquire |
HOgwash, I was under the impression Bush the Younger did the initial bailing out of Wall Street in the wake of the housing bubble collapse. Barry tossed a Lot of our money at them too, but mostly to those companies that bribed him. To be fair I can't say Georgie didn't do much the same, but don't recall the complaints. ( doesn't mean they didn't happen ) The bubble, the "subprime loan collapse" was started by regulations, "well meaning" as these things often are, to stop "redlining" or a perceived racist practice in loan making by the banks. ( see poor & minorities hardest hit rant, above ) This goes back to before Clinton, and peaked with his regime..... For multiple reasons. To oversimplify, banks were required To make risky loans to folk with poor credit. Poor folk, was the intended recipient. Banks complained they would lose money on the probable failures to make payments. The government agreed to cover the poor bet loans so the banks wouldn't lose. Then the unexpected side effects kick in. Unexpected if you just listen to the press release. Many people knew about the loopholes. A few predicted the upcoming disaster, but were called heartless racists. Others cashed in. The whole "buy a house you can't afford and flip it after a coat of paint with no money down" industry got rolling, with tv shows & CD sales on how to get rich quick. Banks & loan companies made out like bandits, and the new rules encouraged huge loans and predatory lending. Sub prime translates to Loan Shark rates. As long as prices rapidly rose, the kinda but not Ponzi scan was great. But when prices flattened, the house flipping yuppie scum just walked, as they had no real stake in the homes & didn't intend to live in them, so no emotional investment either. The poor people who bought houses to live in, OTOH, mostly hung on by their nails, or tried to. Yes, some poor folk couldn't keep up, and many got screwed out of their investment in a house by high interest rates. ( predatory lending/sub prime ) But they didn't cause the collapse. Not by defaulting on $50k houses in the city It was the house flippers. Walking away from $250-500k houses they had hoped to double their money on, pay off the loan & repeat. That's the big default. That would have been expensive, because you & I had to be taxed to pay the banks. The rules socialized the losses, but not the profits. Bad enough, but..... Not the Big Problem. That was the loan companies making mortgages into Collateralized Debt Obligations and selling them to each other & everyone else. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateralized_deb t_obligation And some companies lied about the risk levels. Almost Everyone thought their butts were covered by the government promise to pay off the defaulted loans. But when the defaults level got high, it turned out the government promise was..... Sketchy. The money wasn't there. Congress had spent it. And the CDO market was full of way overpriced paper, and a lot of it was revealed to be bogus. Companies sold the same loan over and over. Traded back and forth, suddenly pension funds & private IRAs had scrap paper, and the actual owners of any particular property was blurred. Spread out over millions? of investment funds. Some companies saw the crash coming, dumped the bad paper, and made out. Some because they were smart, some crooked. So everyone who didn't have buddies in government to bail them out, got screwed. Multiple bad actors, ( several from the Clinton administration, some from Bush's ) multiple causes, deliberately opaque and dirty dealings all around. Some that got bailed out were deserving. Some were criminally responsible, some because they bribed themselves special treatment. A lot of that bribery went into Obama's pockets, and Barney Frank's, etc. Too big to fail. Meant paid off the crooked politicians. They took advantage of the rules. If they made a profit, they kept it. If they didn't, you paid to pay them back. Feel free to correct any errors. The above is oversimplified. And I cleaned up most of the anger. | ||
| Aesquire |
Julie. None of that made sense. And most of the assumed facts are false. Come on, admit it. You work for the Republican party, right? | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/the- trump-legal-teams-letter-to-mueller.php Here is a sane view on the news story Julie has kittens over, and includes a link to the criminally leaked memo. Fwiw, certainly the President can obstruct justice. Barry did. Trump might, though I've seen nothing to show he has. I don't think any court would say you can shut down a legal investigation into yourself. Andrew Cuomo, N.Y. Governor did so, ending a Commission investigating corruption, when it started getting into his minions & his corruption. But that wasn't a police/courts/justice group investigation. Technically. Besides, New York. Emperor. | ||
| H0gwash |
The movie TOO BIG TO FAIL is worth watching because it makes the multilayered complexity quite watchable and entertaining by following a buncha Wall Street newbies pursing a fortune in the financial jungle. Lotta good actors in it, it's on Netflix. I worked in architecture and the firm closed and we were all laid off. It didn't totally suck because I got to pursue projects such as rebuilding the top end of my Sporty which had blown a head gasket which I thought was supercool never having done it before, and I was able to keep paying on my own mortgage because I had a tenant in that house while I lived at my future husband's place. After a year on the dole I got a job with a buncha Mexicans pushing wood thru various woodworking machines and years later got a promotion from a different part of the corporation selling overpriced coffee which I still hold. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://spectator.org/white-houses-biofuels-reform -protects-american-workers-and-scatters-speculator s/ | ||
| Sifo |
On the CBO projections, sadly, they are very flawed. I do however share concern on Trump's economic policies in that he isn't doing enough to control the spending side. The problem with the CBO is that they basically do a static analysis for their projections. I.E. they look at tax revenues after a new tax policy, but ignore any growth/retraction that result from that tax policy. Sadly, this just ignores basic economic principles. It's such a ridiculous analysis that it could only come from a government bureaucracy. Do you ever hear about CBO estimates having been close to reality? I would say that would be a rarity. Let's take a look at what the Trump tax cuts actually did...  From this story... Federal Tax Revenues Hit Record Highs — Are Trump's Tax Cuts Paying For Themselves?
HOgwash, I was under the impression Bush the Younger did the initial bailing out of Wall Street in the wake of the housing bubble collapse. He did do that. I also said that it went against his basic principles, but that he felt it was best to work with the incoming BO administration and not cause even more economic problems by instituting policies that would certainly be changed in a few months. Arguably, even though it was started by Bush, it was BO's program. | ||
| Sifo |
BTW, I fully agree with what Aesquire said about the stock market thriving under both BO and Trump, but for very different reasons. I guess if the stock market was all that mattered, BO's Presidency could be seen as a huge success. You also have ask the question about sustainability of any policy. | ||
| H0gwash |
When the economy is truly shaky Dems and Reps will certainly work together to ensure they both get paid at least their base government salary. Above that is gravy. After that they can recreationally haggle over social issues. Hope the wedding was fun. | ||
| Sifo |
Interesting graph, it is nice to see any reversal of recession trends however slight. Wow, only 67% participation in the best of times. I can see why people like to talk GDP rather than participation rate. Keep in mind that this is a percentage of all the US. It includes kids that are yet to enter the job market, as well as retirees. It also includes those who are of working age, but not working for any of many reasons. Then you have some untold parts of the story. It doesn't track those who are working part time jobs, but would prefer full time employment. This became a real problem with Obamacare, as it became beneficial for employers to utilize part time employees far more. I think GDP is a simpler metric to understand however, with fewer hidden variables. There can be a wide variety of reasons that segments of society are not working. I would bet that China has a much high labor participation rate among 5-15 year olds. I'm not sure I would view that as a good thing though. Higher GDP numbers, assuming you haven't changed the methodology of calculating it, is pretty much universally good. | ||
| H0gwash |
It would seem in the best case scenario with the greying of America that the participation rate will drop more due to seniors retiring for the most legitimate reasons, they just can't work anymore. | ||
| Sifo |
When the economy is truly shaky Dems and Reps will certainly work together to ensure they both get paid at least their base government salary. Above that is gravy. After that they can recreationally haggle over social issues. Hope the wedding was fun. I tend to agree that both parties tend to work together to benefit themselves. It's a reason for a very limited federal government IMO. Wedding was mostly great. Thanks. It was difficult though because my other nephew, who would have been the best man, was missing due to his passing in a work related boat accident last July. They actually chose to not have the traditional best man. Nice tribute, but also difficult. Outdoor ceremony with pretty much perfect weather. They had an uncle do the ceremony, his first after becoming a minister. It made for a very personal event. I'm pretty fuzzy today.  | ||
| Two_seasons |
Since it has been one year and three days since President Trump tweeted "...drinking my hot cofefe, we ordered the Breitbart "Caution, Hot Cofefe" mugs, six of them, plus my Unapoligetic American t-shirt. Frankly, I wish we had less "career politicians" in office. We'd have more freedom, that is for sure! | ||
| Fb1 |
Source, more: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/may-jobs-numbers-a re-bad-news-for-democrats.html | ||
| Fb1 |
Sifo, this snip from the Investors.com piece you posted above...
...dovetails nicely with this snip from the CNS News piece I posted Friday afternoon:
MAGA | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo, this snip from the Investors.com piece you posted above... Exactly! This is something that the left used to understand. It's one of the things that JFK was known for. Somehow they have willed that knowledge from their existence. It was proven again by Reagan in a big way. It's being proven again today. For anyone looking for a sign of an improving economy, this is absolute proof. Beyond that, a big complaint was that the tax cuts were mostly benefiting corporations. This is pretty true on the surface, but we got across the board cuts on personal income too. So where did this tax revenue come from? The answer is personal income. I think that may have been pointed out in the article I posted. I'm not positive, I read a number of them in the past week. So we have been told that the people got screwed on tax cuts. They did get tax cuts though. They are paying more dollars in taxes though. This can only be because they are making more, and keeping a higher percentage of what they make to boot. This is how the left defines getting screwed these days. I say SCREW ME MORE! | ||
| Fb1 |
^ Source, more: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol itics/current_events/social_issues/voters_think_yo ung_blacks_doing_better_under_trump_than_obama Even black voters are nearly twice as likely (28%) to say young black Americans are better off now than they were in the closing year of 0bama’s presidency (15%). Wow. | ||
| Fb1 |
^: https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1003763606 603919360 | ||
| Aesquire |
The usual mantra of the Democrat, that the tax cuts were for the evil rich, ( any tax cuts are blasphemy to them ) is openly contradicted by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer screaming about their rich donors being hit hard. By state taxes. Income & property. I don't make enough, and my "mansion" small enough, that the Trump Tax cuts don't hurt me at all. Don't hurt the middle class. Wouldn't hurt the rich, unless they live in an uber socialist paradise that deliberately attracts immigration from other states by it's high welfare payments. for the same reason Democrats want more immigrants on welfare from Mexico & the middle East, dependent voters. Notice that other than Silicon valley bribed for tech workers, Democrats don't want middle class working immigrants. It occurs to me, that taxing illegal campaign contributions from foreign countries might be a nasty little trick Trump could use. After all, we have a tradition not to prosecute losing politicians. For good reasons. But a 100% tax on illegal money "in lieu of prosecution" would be a potent weapon against the Obama & Clinton families. Yes, the screaming of the pigs would be deafening. The Media would explode. But between the Obama Campaign which is still running! Just under a new name, and still money laundering foreign bribes. And the Clinton Foundation, alone, you could pay for a Wall. Or better yet, begin the First Effective Real Sustainable Energy Project. Building orbital solar satellites. Which can sell American Power all over the world. Electricity for Africa! No tankers that can't get to inland nations without ports. No pipelines crossing hostile countries. Even Germany can keep it's rusty windmills & cloud shades solar panels & buy American power, instead of Putin's. Heck, we should build them anyway. |
