Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[PassedOut]

It was good to see that Nikki Haley pushed back hard against the rumor that she had an affair with Trump:

 

Have you seen the man?! The very thought of it makes me want to vomit!

:)

[ldrews]

More MAGA! https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fedex-taxreforms/fedex-commits-3-2-billion-to-raise-pay-expand-hubs-after-u-s-tax-overhaul-idUSKBN1FF1X2?il=0

[y66]

From In a Comically Drawn Pennsylvania District, the Voters Are Not Amused at NYT:

 

KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa. — It was supposed to be a political firewall. It has become a laughingstock.

 

The Seventh Congressional District in Pennsylvania is nicknamed Goofy Kicking Donald Duck because its highly contorted shape resembles one Disney character planting a foot in the posterior of another.

 

But the district got the boot itself this week, along with the rest of the state’s political map. Pennsylvania’s highest court said the Congressional boundaries didn’t just look funny, they also violated the State Constitution, by unfairly favoring the Republicans who drew them.

 

The decision was greeted with joy by Democrats, and even some Republicans, in the Goofy district, which spreads like an ink blot for 50 miles from the Philadelphia suburbs all the way out to Amish country. Residents have grown weary of having their House seat held up as one of the most gerrymandered in the country, used to explain the country’s descent into tribal politics and voter cynicism.

 

“The Seventh District has become a national joke,” said Beth Lawn, 72, who lives in a neighborhood she calls “one of Goofy’s fingers.” It was carved from the city of Chester, predominantly poor and black, south of Philadelphia.

[kenberg]

It was good to see that Nikki Haley pushed back hard against the rumor that she had an affair with Trump:

 

 

"Have you seen the man?! The very thought of it makes me want to vomit!"

:)

 

 

Even if this is fake news it is great fake news.

[Winstonm]

FP reports that Fredo in June was trying to intimidate witnesses:

 

President Donald Trump Fredo pressed senior aides last June to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI officials after learning that those specific employees were likely to be witnesses against him as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, according to two people directly familiar with the matter

[Winstonm]

It sure does when you try to make arguments based on isolated opinions, not facts. :D

 

Here are some real data to chew over.

 

GDP Growth Rate Obama years:

 

2016 1.5%

2015 2.6%

2014 2.4%

2013 1.5%

2012 2.3%

2011 1.6%

 

GDP Growth Rate Trump 2017

 

2017 2.3%

 

1st Qtr 1.2%

2nd Qtr 3.1%

3rd Qtr 3.2%

4th Qtr 2.6%

 

Since Trump didn't take office until the end of January, the 1st quarter would seem to be more a carryover of Obama's policies than Trump's policies. In any case, there would be a lag in the economy adjusting to a new President in charge. But it looks so far like once Trump was in charge and started to progress a pro growth agenda, the economy perked up considerably.

 

As I said above, presidents have virtually no effect on the economy.

[ldrews]

As I said above, presidents have virtually no effect on the economy.

 

I find that patently absurd. Ask the people receiving bonuses as a result of the Trump Tax Cut/Reform legislation. Ask the Obamacare people/insurance companies after the individual mandate was repealed. Ask all of the companies that have announced investment/repatriation plans based on the new tax laws.

 

Then ask "would Obama have pushed for and passed such tax legislation?" "Would Hillary have pushed for and passed such tax legislation?" I think not. Elections have consequences.

[rmnka447]

I find that patently absurd. Ask the people receiving bonuses as a result of the Trump Tax Cut/Reform legislation. Ask the Obamacare people/insurance companies after the individual mandate was repealed. Ask all of the companies that have announced investment/repatriation plans based on the new tax laws.

 

Then ask "would Obama have pushed for and passed such tax legislation?" "Would Hillary have pushed for and passed such tax legislation?" I think not. Elections have consequences.

 

Of course, they wouldn't. They believe that government is the source of business success and profits, not the entrepreneurs/management/employees. They've stated that several times.

 

Unfortunately, Barack Obama pursued distinctly anti-business policies that stunted the economy. So he got what he sowed insipid economic growth, stagnant wages, and jobs lost overseas. Despite progressive efforts to put lipstick on the economy's performance to make it look better, everyday people recognized it for what it was, ugly.

[rmnka447]

As I said above, presidents have virtually no effect on the economy.

You must have difficulty looking at real data then. If you will notice, the economy turned around in the last 3 quarters after President Trump took over. I not sure how they'd aggregate it for that period, but a simple average of the quarterly growth rates would be about 3%.

 

So it looks to me like your OPINION is wrong.

[cherdano]

LOL

[PassedOut]

Then ask "would Obama have pushed for and passed such tax legislation?" "Would Hillary have pushed for and passed such tax legislation?" I think not. Elections have consequences.

With a $20 trillion debt and full employment, that tax cut was fiscally irresponsible, so you are right -- no responsible individual would have proposed it nor voted for it. Nor supported it.

[kenberg]

As I said above, presidents have virtually no effect on the economy.

 

 

So if the economy crashes in 2019 you will not at all hold Donald trump responsible? You do not hold GWB at all responsible for what happened in 2008?

 

The economy grew well during the time Bill Clinton was president. I didn't look up the figures, but I remember it as growing well. My guess is that this was partly a result of Clinton policies, partly a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the latter being something Clinton had little or nothing to do with. And of course Congress was involved. Neither Congress nor the president can take all the blame/credit for what happens, nor should they be absolved of all blame/credit. There were some tax cuts in 2001. I imagine this effected the economy. Surely the events of 9/11 in 2001 also effected the economy. Both had an effect.

 

I would agree that praising Trump for the growth of the economy in 2017 is premature and simplistic. One year is only one year, and what happens in one year is in part the result of what had been done in previous years and part the result of forces beyond the control of the president. Also it is partly the result of current policies advocated by the current president. Thinking that presidents have virtually no effect on the economy seems wildly off the mark. If I thought that were true I would not worry nearly as much as I do over who is sitting in the Oval Office.

 

One year is one year. 1929 was a great year until it wan't. I am not such a pessimist that I am predicting catastrophe, but I don't think that our current rapid increase in the price of stocks will be maintained. Not that a rising DJIA helps the guy in the street all that much anyway.

 

Anyway, I think it matters who is president. For the economy and for other things as well. I am guessing that you actually agree with this.

[RedSpawn]

It sure does when you try to make arguments based on isolated opinions, not facts. :D

 

Here are some real data to chew over.

 

GDP Growth Rate Obama years:

 

2016 1.5%

2015 2.6%

2014 2.4%

2013 1.5%

2012 2.3%

2011 1.6%

 

GDP Growth Rate Trump 2017

 

2017 2.3%

 

1st Qtr 1.2%

2nd Qtr 3.1%

3rd Qtr 3.2%

4th Qtr 2.6%

 

Since Trump didn't take office until the end of January, the 1st quarter would seem to be more a carryover of Obama's policies than Trump's policies. In any case, there would be a lag in the economy adjusting to a new President in charge. But it looks so far like once Trump was in charge and started to progress a pro growth agenda, the economy perked up considerably.

 

Your statistics are overlooking the fact that President Obama was handed an economy that was on the precipice of failure. In October 2007 - January 2009 -- Let the record show:

• Washington Mutual Bank failed (largest savings and thrift) and was acquired by Chase Bank in fire sale.
  
• Lehman Brothers with $639 billion in assets failed.
  
• The Bear Stearns Companies were purchased by JP Morgan Chase in fire sale.
  
• Indymac Bank failed and was put into FDIC receivorship. It was the 4th largest bank failure in U.S. history.
  
• Merrill Lynch was acquired by Bank of America to avoid bankruptcy.
  
• Wachovia Bank was acquired by Wells Fargo to avoid a ruinous bank failure.
  
• The FDIC fund was practically drained dry; the FDIC was wheeling and dealing with big banks to avoid having to finance another big bank failure to prevent its own insolvency.
  
• The U.S. Treasury guaranteed ALL money market funds from September 2008 to September 2009 to reduce the enormous amounts of capital flight occurring in the capital markets.
  
• AIG, the largest insurer of credit default swaps, was bailed out to avoid bankruptcy -- especially since $3.6 trillion of the money market fund industry was invested in AIG debt.
  
• Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed into federal conservatorship to further reduce market panic.
  
• Citibank was loaned billions of dollars by the federal government to avoid bank failure.
  

Exactly how many years should a President be allowed to get the economy back on track given THESE type of cataclysmic events occurring before his Presidency?

[Winstonm]

So if the economy crashes in 2019 you will not at all hold Donald trump responsible? You do not hold GWB at all responsible for what happened in 2008?

 

The economy grew well during the time Bill Clinton was president. I didn't look up the figures, but I remember it as growing well. My guess is that this was partly a result of Clinton policies, partly a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the latter being something Clinton had little or nothing to do with. And of course Congress was involved. Neither Congress nor the president can take all the blame/credit for what happens, nor should they be absolved of all blame/credit. There were some tax cuts in 2001. I imagine this effected the economy. Surely the events of 9/11 in 2001 also effected the economy. Both had an effect.

 

I would agree that praising Trump for the growth of the economy in 2017 is premature and simplistic. One year is only one year, and what happens in one year is in part the result of what had been done in previous years and part the result of forces beyond the control of the president. Also it is partly the result of current policies advocated by the current president. Thinking that presidents have virtually no effect on the economy seems wildly off the mark. If I thought that were true I would not worry nearly as much as I do over who is sitting in the Oval Office.

 

One year is one year. 1929 was a great year until it wan't. I am not such a pessimist that I am predicting catastrophe, but I don't think that our current rapid increase in the price of stocks will be maintained. Not that a rising DJIA helps the guy in the street all that much anyway.

 

Anyway, I think it matters who is president. For the economy and for other things as well. I am guessing that you actually agree with this.

 

No, I don't hold George Bush personally responsible for the Great Recession. That event was a cumulative effect of the actions of many presidents and many congresses, and both Republicans and Democrats were culpable. If you look at the previous great crash in 1929 you will see that was also an accumulation effect after years of bad policy and market faith. The affect of the president on the economy is like adding a rudder and sail to an iceberg - not much is going to happen to change course.

 

The US economy is not fickle and reactionary. It has its own rhythm and cycles unhinged from the immediacy of politics but will react to long-term policy, good and bad.

 

This is not to say policy cannot have a more immediate effect on things that are more reactionary - such as the stock market. There is little doubt that the stock market was pricing in business tax relief for the past year. There is a saying on Wall Street: buy the rumor; sell the fact. But the stock market is not the US economy.

 

It takes years to build a bubble - not long for the bubble to pop. Housing policies, bank rules, and non-enforcement of non-bank standards all contributed over many years to build a housing bubble - that the bubble popped when George Bush was in office was his and our bad luck. But it was bound to happen when the critical mass point was reached, and both Republicans and Democrats were complicit it allowing it to happen.

[Winstonm]

Of course, they wouldn't. They believe that government is the source of business success and profits, not the entrepreneurs/management/employees. They've stated that several times.

 

Unfortunately, Barack Obama pursued distinctly anti-business policies that stunted the economy. So he got what he sowed insipid economic growth, stagnant wages, and jobs lost overseas. Despite progressive efforts to put lipstick on the economy's performance to make it look better, everyday people recognized it for what it was, ugly.

 

Would you please provide a quote where Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton said that government is the source of business profits?

 

What is your explanation of the Great Recession? If you will remember, President Obama was inaugurated in January, 2009. What did he inherit?

 

 

Following the bursting of the housing bubble in mid-2007, and the housing market correction and subprime mortgage crisis the following year, the United States entered a severe recession.

 

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) dates the beginning of the recession as December 2007. According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and GDP contracted by 5.1%, making the Great Recession the worst since the Great Depression. Unemployment rose from 4.7% in November 2007 to peak at 10% in October 2009.[1]

 

And the severity of the event was mirrored by the recovery:

 

The bottom, or trough, was reached in the second quarter of 2009 (marking the technical end of the recession, defined as at least two consecutive quarters of declining GDP).[2] The NBER, dating by month, points to June 2009 as the final month of the recession.

 

The recovery after the 2009 trough was weak and both GDP and job growth erratic and uneven. A solid, strong pace of job growth was not seen until 2011.[3] By August 2015, the unemployment rate was 5.1%,[4] below the historical average of 5.6% but still barely above the 5% when the recession started in December 2007, with roughly 12,639,000 jobs added since the Great Recession's payroll trough in February 2010.[5] American household net worth fell from a pre-recession peak of $68 trillion in Q3 2007 to $55 trillion by Q1 2009,[6] while real median household income fell from $56,436 in 2007 to $51,758 by 2012.[7] The poverty rate increased from 2006 to 2010, reaching a peak of 15%, and held there through 2012 before dropping to 14.5% in 2013.[8]

 

It seems many people who were not financially active at that time do not understand how close the U.S. came to a reliving of the Great Depression, but even with rapid response from the Federal Reserve and the stimulus package the results were marginal - that says more about the severity of the event than offering a glimpse at blame. A look at the history of the U.S. economy in the years following 1929 is a better gauge of how well the US responded to the Great Recession. In that, I can help:

 

In the U.S., recovery began in early 1933, but the U.S. did not return to 1929 GNP for over a decade and still had an unemployment rate of about 15% in 1940, albeit down from the high of 25% in 1933

 

Free markets are great when they are bounded by rules that are: 1) good for society as a whole, 2) non-penal to normal-business growth and innovation, and 3) enforced. The Great Recession is another classic example of what happens to free markets when government policy abandons these ideas.

 

Free markets are not the answer; government is not the answer. Sounds to me like a compromise might be best.

[RedSpawn]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-whitehouse/trump-seeks-25-billion-for-border-wall-offers-dreamer-citizenship-idUSKBN1FD2UU

 

Trump seeks $25 billion for border wall, offers 'Dreamer' citizenship

Roberta Rampton, Susan Cornwell

4 MIN READ

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Wednesday previewed his outline for an immigration bill that he will promote next week, saying he wants $25 billion to build a border wall and is open to granting citizenship to illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.

 

Trump said he was optimistic he could come to an agreement with both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress that would appeal to hardliners seeking tougher rules for immigrants while also preventing the roughly 700,000 “Dreamers” from being deported.

 

“Tell them not to be concerned, ok? Tell them not to worry. We’re going to solve the problem. It’s up to the Democrats, but they (the Dreamers) should not be concerned,” Trump told reporters during an impromptu question-and-answer session at the White House.

 

Trump campaigned for president in 2016 promising tougher rules for immigration. In September, he announced he was ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program created by his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, effective in March - unless Congress came up with a new law.

 

The program currently protects about 700,000 people, mostly Hispanic young adults, from deportation and provides them work permits.

 

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the lead lawmakers in the immigration negotiations, said Trump’s comments signaled a major breakthrough.

 

“President Trump’s support for a pathway to citizenship will help us get strong border security measures as we work to modernize a broken immigration system,” Graham said in a statement. “With this strong statement by President Trump, I have never felt better about our chances of finding a solution on immigration.”

 

“COULD GO EITHER WAY”

 

Graham was part of a bipartisan group of three dozen senators who met on Wednesday on Capitol Hill to discuss moving forward on immigration legislation.

 

DACA recipients and supporters protest for a clean Dream Act outside Disneyland in Anaheim, California U.S. January 22, 2018. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

After the meeting, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill expressed cautious optimism to reporters about Trump’s framework, saying “that could go either way,” when asked if it will be helpful to lawmakers.

 

Trump’s chief of staff, John Kelly, was slated to meet with lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Thursday, a senior White House official said.

 

Trump so far has rejected bipartisan proposals to continue DACA, leading to the standoff between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate that resulted in a three-day government shutdown that ended on Monday.

 

People protest for immigration reform for DACA recipients and a new Dream Act, in Los Angeles, California, U.S. January 22, 2018. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

Congress agreed to extend funding to Feb. 8, but Republicans promised to allow debate on the future of the young illegal immigrants. Senators began meeting to discuss their proposals on Wednesday.

 

The White House plans on Monday to unveil a framework for immigration legislation that it believes can pass muster with both parties. Trump will deliver his State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday night.

 

For immigration legislation to be enacted into law, the House of Representatives ultimately would have to pass a bill identical to whatever the Senate approves.

 

Trump said his proposal would include a request for $25 billion for the border wall, $5 billion for other border security programs, measures to curb family sponsorship of immigrants, and an overhaul of or end to the visa lottery system.

 

In exchange, he said he wanted to offer the Dreamers protection from deportation and an “incentive” of citizenship, perhaps in 10 to 12 years.

 

Addressing the status of the Dreamers’ parents, who brought them into America illegally, would be “tricky,” Trump said.

 

Reporting by Roberta Rampton; Writing by Makini Brice and Lisa Lambert; Editing by Rosalba O'Brien and Leslie Adler

So, can someone explain to me why the White House needs $25 billion ($25,000,000,000) for the border wall for Mexico if the campaign promise was that Mexico was going to pay for the wall?

 

Oh let me guess, I misinterpreted the campaign promise? President Trump didn't promise that. I just heard what I wanted to hear, right?

 

Source:

 

This type of hypocrisy or amnesia is just mind-numbing.

[ldrews]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-whitehouse/trump-seeks-25-billion-for-border-wall-offers-dreamer-citizenship-idUSKBN1FD2UU

 

 

So, can someone explain to me why the White House needs $25 billion ($25,000,000,000) for the border wall for Mexico if the campaign promise was that Mexico was going to pay for the wall?

 

Oh let me guess, I misinterpreted the campaign promise? President Trump didn't promise that. I just heard what I wanted to hear, right?

 

Source:

 

This type of hypocrisy or amnesia is just mind-numbing.

 

Did you think Mexico was going to write a check? Given the trade flows and money flows between the US and Mexico I would imagine there are a number of ways that Mexico might eventually pay for the wall. Perhaps as a concession to keep NAFTA in place? Perhaps by imposing tariffs on Mexican imports. Perhaps by providing incentives for more companies to return from Mexico to the US, causing a $25 billion swing in the trade deficit with Mexico? Lots of possibilities if you don't insist on Mexico writing a check before construction begins.

[kenberg]

Oh for God's sake, of course Mexico isn't going to pay for it. If we are going to build a wall, we are going to pay for it.

 

Negotiations on NAFTA will be whatever they will be. It is of course possible that some aspect of negotiations about NAFTA will be favorable, or appear favorable, to the US. And, if so, then someone could say "See, they are paying for the wall". Whether you favor Trump or not, a little skepticism is occasionally called for. Sarah Sanders gets paid for maintaining that the obviously false is true, but let's not do it for free.

 

The wall is the wall, NAFTA is NAFTA. Maybe we can squeeze money out of Mexico, if that's what we really want to do, and maybe we can't. If someone steals my wallet then he has stolen my wallet. If he then buys a bottle of wine with the contents, this doesn't mean that I bought him a bottle of wine. .

[ggwhiz]

So much of this seems to be about voter demographics and from gerrymandering to GoP positioning on future legal immigration limits I'm betting there is a large dash of racism involved.

[ldrews]

Oh for God's sake, of course Mexico isn't going to pay for it. If we are going to build a wall, we are going to pay for it.

 

Negotiations on NAFTA will be whatever they will be. It is of course possible that some aspect of negotiations about NAFTA will be favorable, or appear favorable, to the US. And, if so, then someone could say "See, they are paying for the wall". Whether you favor Trump or not, a little skepticism is occasionally called for. Sarah Sanders gets paid for maintaining that the obviously false is true, but let's not do it for free.

 

The wall is the wall, NAFTA is NAFTA. Maybe we can squeeze money out of Mexico, if that's what we really want to do, and maybe we can't. If someone steals my wallet then he has stolen my wallet. If he then buys a bottle of wine with the contents, this doesn't mean that I bought him a bottle of wine. .

 

Oh for God's sake, negotiations and relationships are far more complex than you seem to believe.

 

If I arrange for a loan and build a house, then rent the house to tenants for 20 years for enough to cover maintenance, taxes, and mortgage payments, who paid for the house? Not the builder!

 

If I win a free whatever but have to pay exorbitant shipping charges, then I have paid for the whatever.

 

If in some way there occurs a transfer of $25 billion from Mexico's side of the ledger to the US side of the ledger, then Mexico will effectively have paid for the wall. Of course, for face saving reasons, no one will mention that connection. Except maybe Trump!

 

Go wheel and deal in NY real estate if you want to learn the different ways to extract money from others.

[barmar]

If in some way there occurs a transfer of $25 billion from Mexico's side of the ledger to the US side of the ledger, then Mexico will effectively have paid for the wall. Of course, for face saving reasons, no one will mention that connection. Except maybe Trump!

Yes, Trump has said on a number of occasions that his plan is to get Mexico to reimburse us in some way. But Mexico has also said that they have no plan to do this. How can Trump promise something like this? Should Congress really appropriate such a huge amount on this wish and a prayer?

Go wheel and deal in NY real estate if you want to learn the different ways to extract money from others.

Should we really run our country like Trump's dishonest business practices? He was notorious for reneging on deals with his suppliers.

 

Newsday Donald Trump stiffed me on $100G deal on pianos

At Monday night’s debate, Donald Trump was called out for stiffing the people who work for him.

 

Trump has been accused of failing to pay hundreds of contractors. And so far, he hasn’t seemed very sorry. When asked about failing to pay someone by Hillary Clinton this week, Trump replied, “Maybe he didn’t do a good job, and I was unsatisfied with his work.”

 

I take that attack personally. I’m one of the many small business owners who’ve been used by Trump, exploited and forced to suffer a loss because of his corporation’s shady practices.

 

My relationship with Trump began in 1989, when he asked me to supply several grand and upright pianos to his then-new Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City. I’d been running a music store for more than 30 years, selling instruments to local schools and residents. My business was a family affair (my grandsons still run the store). And I had a great relationship with my customers — no one had ever failed to pay.

 

I was thrilled to get a $100,000 contract from Trump. It was one of the biggest sales I’d ever made. I was supposed to deliver and tune the pianos; the Trump corporation would pay me within 90 days. I asked my lawyer whether I should ask for payment upfront, and he laughed. “It’s Donald Trump!” he told me. “He’s got lots of money.”

 

But when I requested payment, the Trump corporation hemmed and hawed. Executives avoided my calls and crafted excuses. After a couple of months, I got a letter telling me that the casino was short on funds. It would pay 70 percent of what I was owed. There was no negotiating. I didn’t know what to do — I couldn’t afford to sue the Trump corporation, and I needed money to pay my piano suppliers. So I took the $70,000.

 

Losing $30,000 was a big hit to me and my family. The profit from Trump was meant to be a big part of my salary for the year. So I made much less. There was no money to help grow my business. I had fewer pianos in the showroom and a smaller advertising budget. Because of Trump, my store stagnated for a couple of years. I felt like I’d been taken advantage of. I was embarrassed.

 

Trump keeps saying that it’s time we got a businessman to run the country. Of course, I think it’s important to find someone who can bolster the economy, but I also think we need a president who cares about small-business owners, and about honoring his commitments. That’s not Trump.

J. Michael Diehl is the retired owner of Freehold Music Center in Freehold, New Jersey. He wrote this for The Washington Post.

[ldrews]

Yes, Trump has said on a number of occasions that his plan is to get Mexico to reimburse us in some way. But Mexico has also said that they have no plan to do this. How can Trump promise something like this? Should Congress really appropriate such a huge amount on this wish and a prayer?

 

Should we really run our country like Trump's dishonest business practices? He was notorious for reneging on deals with his suppliers.

 

Newsday Donald Trump stiffed me on $100G deal on pianos

 

I do not know all of the details of the referenced case. We have laws to enforce contracts. If the contract was valid, the individual has recourse through the courts. Did he avail himself of the rememdy?

 

The real world of government, business, and international relations is not nice, it is not pretty. If the person running the organization does not know what they are doing or does not have the competence to deal with real world conditions and adversaries, bad things tend to happen. Venezuela is a current case in point. Because of mismanagement, ideology, political favouritism, who knows what, the Venezuelan public is starving.

 

So yes, if Trump's "dishonest business practices" is what it takes to generate a prosperous economy so that people don't starve, then I support those practices. I would much rather have a dishonest, competent manager than an ideologically pure idiot running the country. But I suppose you would prefer the latter.

 

However, if Trump's business practices were, in fact, dishonest, he would have been nailed in court and would be spending time in jail rather than running the country. Unethical or unsavory are not the same as dishonest.

[kenberg]

Go wheel and deal in NY real estate if you want to learn the different ways to extract money from others.

The answer here is simple. I do not want to learn such things.

 

Yes, Trump has said on a number of occasions that his plan is to get Mexico to reimburse us in some way. But Mexico has also said that they have no plan to do this. How can Trump promise something like this? Should Congress really appropriate such a huge amount on this wish and a prayer?

 

Certainly Congress should do no such thing. If, for whatever the reason, we grab some money from Mexico then we can, if we wish, revel in this success.I am not so sure I would join in the celebration.

Basically, any negotiation that we plan to use to get Mexico to give us some money can be done whether or not we build a wall. So they are two separate things. Should we pressure Mexico to give us some money, should we build a wall. We can do either without doing the other.

 

However, if Trump's business practices were, in fact, dishonest, he would have been nailed in court and would be spending time in jail rather than running the country. Unethical or unsavory are not the same as dishonest.

 

Maybe, maybe not. But it reminds me of something a Republican friend suggested during Watergate. He thought people in the Nixon circle could wear NYI badges, Not yet Indicted.

But cute buttons aside, this goes pretty much to the heart of my objection to Trump. I don't think I am all that naive. I know many people walk very close to the legal line and have high-powered lawyers to keep them out of jail. I would prefer that such people stay in real estate or somewhere else so that I can avoid them .

 

A few posts back I approvingly noted a post by PassedOut that gave a supposed response of Nikki Haley to allegations that she had had an affair with Trump "Have you seen the man?! The very thought of it makes me want to vomit!". I am skeptical that she said this. Not skeptical that she thinks it, just skeptical that she said it. It perfectly captures my thoughts of any interaction whatsoever on any level with Trump. I have yet to hear any woman express any sexual attraction to him whatsoever, and I think anyone would have to be nuts to work for him or do business with him.

 

But back to business.

 

Trump won the election. Republicans are in the majority in the House and the Senate. Elections matter. We might well build a wall. We should then build it as we see fit, as high as we see fit, out of whatever materials we think are best, and so on. And we pay for it. We can, if we see fit, also try a money grab from Mexico. Or we can try to grab some money from France. Or Thailand. Wherever the grabber in chief thinks there is some loose money that we can grab. If that's really what we want to do, I guess we will do it. Or try to do it. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether we build a wall.

[ldrews]

The answer here is simple. I do not want to learn such things.

 

 

 

Certainly Congress should do no such thing. If, for whatever the reason, we grab some money from Mexico then we can, if we wish, revel in this success.I am not so sure I would join in the celebration.

Basically, any negotiation that we plan to use to get Mexico to give us some money can be done whether or not we build a wall. So they are two separate things. Should we pressure Mexico to give us some money, should we build a wall. We can do either without doing the other.

 

 

 

Maybe, maybe not. But it reminds me of something a Republican friend suggested during Watergate. He thought people in the Nixon circle could wear NYI badges, Not yet Indicted.

But cute buttons aside, this goes pretty much to the heart of my objection to Trump. I don't think I am all that naive. I know many people walk very close to the legal line and have high-powered lawyers to keep them out of jail. I would prefer that such people stay in real estate or somewhere else so that I can avoid them .

 

A few posts back I approvingly noted a post by PassedOut that gave a supposed response of Nikki Haley to allegations that she had had an affair with Trump "Have you seen the man?! The very thought of it makes me want to vomit!". I am skeptical that she said this. Not skeptical that she thinks it, just skeptical that she said it. It perfectly captures my thoughts of any interaction whatsoever on any level with Trump. I have yet to hear any woman express any sexual attraction to him whatsoever, and I think anyone would have to be nuts to work for him or do business with him.

 

But back to business.

 

Trump won the election. Republicans are in the majority in the House and the Senate. Elections matter. We might well build a wall. We should then build it as we see fit, as high as we see fit, out of whatever materials we think are best, and so on. And we pay for it. We can, if we see fit, also try a money grab from Mexico. Or we can try to grab some money from France. Or Thailand. Wherever the grabber in chief thinks there is some loose money that we can grab. If that's really what we want to do, I guess we will do it. Or try to do it. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether we build a wall.

 

I agree, building the wall and getting money from Mexico are two different, if related, things. Getting money from Mexico is just a fit of spite. Granted, Mexico does not seem that interested in helping stem the flow of illegal entrants.

 

And I just read a report that indicated that only about 35% or so of the arrests of illegal entrants are Mexican. The remainder come from over 180 countries with most of them from Central America. So Mexico is just a conduit for people around the world who have noticed that our border with Mexico is porous.

[y66]

From Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration by Alan S. Blinder, Mark W. Watson

 

NBER Working Paper No. 20324

 

While economists, political scientists, and even lay people have known for decades that macroeconomic variables like GDP growth and inflation influence elections, this paper makes a landing on a previously-dark intellectual continent: How, if at all, do election outcomes influence subsequent economic performance. What have we learned from this exploration?

 

There is a systematic and large gap between the US economy’s macroeconomic performance when a Democrat is President of the United States versus when a Republican is. While other macroeconomic indicators largely agree, we have concentrated on real GDP growth over the full sample, which is 1.8 percentage points higher under Democrats--a stunningly large partisan gap relative to the sample mean of 3.3 percent. The growth advantage is correlated with Democratic control of the White House, not with Democratic control of Congress. A similar partisan growth gap appears in Canada, but not in the UK, France, or Germany.

 

On the spending side, much of the D-R growth gap in the United States comes from business fixed investment and spending on consumer durables. And it comes mostly in the first year of a presidential term. Yet faster growth under Democrats is not forecastable by standard techniques, which means it cannot be attributed to superior initial conditions. Nor does it stem from different trend rates of growth at different times, nor to any (measureable) boost to confidence from electing a Democratic president.

 

Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large D-R growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim. If anything, and we would not make too much of small differences, both fiscal and monetary policy actions seem to be a bit more stabilizing when a Republican is president—even though Federal Reserve chairmen appointed by Democrats preside over faster growth than Federal Reserve chairmen appointed by Republicans by a wide margin.

 

It seems we must look instead to several variables that are mostly “good luck,” with perhaps a touch of “good policy.” Specifically, Democratic presidents have experienced, on average, better oil shocks than Republicans (some of which may have been induced by foreign policy), a better legacy of productivity shocks, more favorable international conditions, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations (as measured by the Michigan ICE).

 

These factors together explain slightly more than half of the 1.80 percentage point D-R growth gap. The rest remains, for now, a mystery of the still mostly-unexplored continent. The word “research,” taken literally, means search again. We invite other researchers to do so.