Do you think Trump will be impeached or forced to resign?

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

I meant to say posters here give Obama credit for the economic growth in the USA, and will continue to do so for at least 3-7 more years.

 

Dow at 26,231. The stock market is flourishing.

Do you want us to give Trump credit for not derailing the economic growth of the last seven years?

 

Trump took office when the recovery from the Bush financial crisis was powering on.  He has been further helped by a growing world economy.  He got lucky.  His tax cuts probably helped the stock market, but not the overall economy.  In fact, by stimulating an economy already running at near capacity, and increasing federal deficits that are already too high, Trump is setting the country up for another financial crisis.

 

I will certainly give Trump and the Republicans credit for the budget deficit when it explodes in the years ahead, and for the next financial/economic/military crisis that will occur due to his fumbling in office.

 

" Almost one year into his administration, there are, in­cred­ibly, more key positions for which he has nominated nobody than there are confirmed appointees. Of 626 key positions requiring Senate confirmation that The Post tracks in collaboration with the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, there are 241 confirmed, 136 formally nominated — and 245 with no nominee."     https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-destroying-a-national-treasure/2018/01/12/3f42a9ca-f70b-11e7-a9e3-ab18ce41436a_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop&utm_term=.ea6a32ea142b

 

The current Kurdish/Turkey conflict could escalate into the next big war, between two US allies, because we don't have knowledgeable people handling the crisis.  Or similar deficiencies could lead to a war in Korea.  It's already leading to the South China Sea becoming China's private lake.

 

Many people refuse to believe that government is difficult and requires competent people.  I don't know what the reckless incompetence of the Trump administration will lead to, but it won't be anything good.

[riclag]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Trump's response to the opioid crisis:  A 95% cut to the budget of the Office of National Drug Control Policy:  https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/18/trump-targets-drug-policy-office-297422

 

And a completely unqualified 24 year old Deputy Drug Czar:    https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-apos-deputy-drug-czar-121016887.html

 

No problem, I'm sure Jared Kushner will solve it all by himself, right after he brings peace to the Middle East.   

Who is the acting Drug Czar?

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

Who is the acting Drug Czar?

Isn't that something you can look up yourself?

[riclag]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Isn't that something you can look up yourself?

 Tried,It looks vacant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_National_Drug_Control_Policy

Edited January 23, 2018 by riclag

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

 Tried,It looks vacant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_National_Drug_Control_Policy

No surprise.  As indicated about, Trump is leaving a lot of key positions empty.

 

He did nominate someone for the position, but that someone turned out to be cozy with big pharma:

 

" Representative Tom Marino, a Republican from Pennsylvania who had been tapped to lead the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, pulled out after news stories about his efforts to pass an industry-supported law aimed at undercutting enforcement efforts at the same time opioid abuse has mushroomed into a national epidemic."    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/us/politics/trump-says-drug-czar-nominee-tom-marino-withdraws-from-consideration.html

 

 

Looks like Jared will have to solve the opioid crisis on his own, after he finishes bringing Israel and the Palestinians together. Oh, and handling diplomacy with Mexico and China.  And reforming Veteran Affairs and the Criminal Justice system.  And reinventing government.

 

Trump hires the best people, doesn't he?

[Slip]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

No surprise.  As indicated about, Trump is leaving a lot of key positions empty.

 

He did nominate someone for the position, but that someone turned out to be cozy with big pharma:

 

" Representative Tom Marino, a Republican from Pennsylvania who had been tapped to lead the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, pulled out after news stories about his efforts to pass an industry-supported law aimed at undercutting enforcement efforts at the same time opioid abuse has mushroomed into a national epidemic."    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/us/politics/trump-says-drug-czar-nominee-tom-marino-withdraws-from-consideration.html

 

 

Looks like Jared will have to solve the opioid crisis on his own, after he finishes bringing Israel and the Palestinians together. Oh, and handling diplomacy with Mexico and China.  And reforming Veteran Affairs and the Criminal Justice system.  And reinventing government.

 

Trump hires the best people, doesn't he?

I don't get it.  If you compare this Marino guy to to the rest of Trump's 'the best people' this guy is clean as a whistle, and if anything way over qualified and experienced for the position.

 

What gives?

[heybruce]

38 minutes ago, Slip said:

I don't get it.  If you compare this Marino guy to to the rest of Trump's 'the best people' this guy is clean as a whistle, and if anything way over qualified and experienced for the position.

 

What gives?

Well, clean compared to the numerous, nasty swamp creatures Trump has hired.

 

Maybe that's Trump's strategy to drain the swamp--surround himself with the dirtiest of the dirty, then take them all down with him when his own dirty finances are finally revealed.  He'll get out of a job he never wanted, can negotiate a Presidential pardon before he leaves, and people will talk about him for generations, which is what he really wants.  Brilliant.

[lannarebirth]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Do you want us to give Trump credit for not derailing the economic growth of the last seven years?

 

Trump took office when the recovery from the Bush financial crisis was powering on.  He has been further helped by a growing world economy.  He got lucky.  His tax cuts probably helped the stock market, but not the overall economy.  In fact, by stimulating an economy already running at near capacity, and increasing federal deficits that are already too high, Trump is setting the country up for another financial crisis.

 

I will certainly give Trump and the Republicans credit for the budget deficit when it explodes in the years ahead, and for the next financial/economic/military crisis that will occur due to his fumbling in office.

 

 

So your suggestion is that no matter who was elected, Clinton or Trump, the best they could do is derail the economy of the previous administration? The worst economy over that period of time since the Great Depression. Is that your assertion?

 

You know every sustained economic expansion contains elements that lead to its demise. Continued existence of TBTF financial institutions and overly long ZIRP being just two good examples of such. Mispriced assets, misallocation of capital and unservicable debt will be the problem, as it always is. Only this time, what with the over extended ZIRP we have the "everything bubble".  As has become the norm, gains will be privatized and losses will be socialized. 

Edited January 23, 2018 by lannarebirth

[Meljames]

Utter absurdity. Hoping it's fake news.

 

Quote

In 2016, Taylor Weyeneth took a break from his studies as an undergrad law student at St John's University and used the skills he'd acquired organizing a single golf tournament and working in his father's chia seed factory (closed abruptly when his father went to jail for processing illegal Chinese steroids in the plant) to campaign for Donald Trump. Now Weyeneth, at 24 years old, is the deputy chief of staff for Office of National Drug Control Policy, in charge of billions of dollars in spending to curb the opioid epidemic and fight illegal drug use.

https://boingboing.net/2018/01/15/all-the-best-people.html

 

[Silurian]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

Looks like Jared will have to solve the opioid crisis on his own, after he finishes bringing Israel and the Palestinians together. Oh, and handling diplomacy with Mexico and China.  And reforming Veteran Affairs and the Criminal Justice system.  And reinventing government.

 

Well, after around a year of trying Jared still can't get full security clearance yet he is still present at Intelligence briefings. Due to his family ties to the POTUS, he gets to continue his access. No average person would have been allowed to do so. This shows an obvious abuse of power by the POTUS to keep his son-in-law in the inner WH circle.

 

JARED KUSHNER STILL DOESN’T HAVE SECURITY CLEARANCE AFTER A YEAR AT THE WHITE HOUSE

http://www.newsweek.com/jared-kushner-without-security-clearance-after-one-year-white-house-783965

 

[Berkshire]

And here we have the nutjob who threatened to kill CNN employees because they were "fake news."  Well the moron has been arrested and to no one's surprise, the guy is a big fan of Trump....and a total bigot.  Typical Trump supporter?

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/michigan-man-accused-of-threatening-to-attack-cnn-identified-with-hitler-former-classmate-says/ar-AAv5f51?ocid=wispr

[Thakkar]

25 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

And here we have the nutjob who threatened to kill CNN employees because they were "fake news."  Well the moron has been arrested and to no one's surprise, the guy is a big fan of Trump....and a total bigot.  Typical Trump supporter?

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/michigan-man-accused-of-threatening-to-attack-cnn-identified-with-hitler-former-classmate-says/ar-AAv5f51?ocid=wispr

 

What I want to know is: why isn’t the Trump Supporter Community (such as the KKK?) coming out to condemn this man, his actions and ideology? Are they secretly supporting him and his type of actions? Are they surreptitiously trying to introduce Trumpia law into The US and eventually oppress all non Trump-worshipping infidels? Hmm?

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

So your suggestion is that no matter who was elected, Clinton or Trump, the best they could do is derail the economy of the previous administration? The worst economy over that period of time since the Great Depression. Is that your assertion?

 

You know every sustained economic expansion contains elements that lead to its demise. Continued existence of TBTF financial institutions and overly long ZIRP being just two good examples of such. Mispriced assets, misallocation of capital and unservicable debt will be the problem, as it always is. Only this time, what with the over extended ZIRP we have the "everything bubble".  As has become the norm, gains will be privatized and losses will be socialized. 

No, I am suggesting that no matter who was elected, the best he or she could do is not derail the economy of the previous administration.  Also, instead of using the strong economy to run up the deficit, which Trump is doing, they should use the strong economy to bring down the deficit, which every credible economist advocates.

 

It's really quite simple: When the economy is struggling and needs stimulus, deficit spending is needed.  When the economy is running at near full capacity, the deficits should be brought down.  Republicans do the opposite.

 

BTW, economists, and some government officials, recognize the risk of near zero interest rates.  They just don't agree on how to change them without bringing on a recession.  They also recognize the dangers of too big to fail banks, but don't agree on how to downsize them.  Recognizing a problem is not the same as identifying a solution.

Edited January 24, 2018 by heybruce

[lannarebirth]

24 minutes ago, heybruce said:

No, I am suggesting that no matter who was elected, the best he or she could do is not derail the economy of the previous administration.  Also, instead of using the strong economy to run up the deficit, which Trump is doing, they should use the strong economy to bring down the deficit, which every credible economist advocates.

 

It's really quite simple: When the economy is struggling and needs stimulus, deficit spending is needed.  When the economy is running at near full capacity, the deficits should be brought down.  Republicans do the opposite.

 

BTW, economists, and some government officials, recognize the risk of near zero interest rates.  They just don't agree on how to change them without bringing on a recession.  They also recognize the dangers of too big to fail banks, but don't agree on how to downsize them.  Recognizing a problem is not the same as identifying a solution.

 

What's wrong with the occasional recession? It is an integral part of the business cycle. It is the attempt to do away with shallow, periodic recessions that has so distorted the economy and guarantees more severe downturns to come. If the Fed had started their tightening cycle at the end of 2013 when they should have, maybe we'd already be on the other side of a recession now on a much stronger footing.

[FritsSikkink]

Who is flipping sides next:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-signs-gates-may-be-negotiating-with-muellers-team/ar-AAv5GhW?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartandhp

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

What's wrong with the occasional recession? It is an integral part of the business cycle. It is the attempt to do away with shallow, periodic recessions that has so distorted the economy and guarantees more severe downturns to come. If the Fed had started their tightening cycle at the end of 2013 when they should have, maybe we'd already be on the other side of a recession now on a much stronger footing.

What's wrong with recessions?  Unemployment, bankruptcies, declining tax revenues and increasing demands for government services, stuff like that.

 

If I understand you correctly, you think there should be a recession just because it is the natural order of things.  That is one view, not shared by all. 

 

An alternative view of the low interest rates is that they are caused by a surplus of savings, both by developing economies (primarily China) eager to maintain cash buffers against another 1997 style crisis, and major companies enjoying record profits and sitting on them rather than investing them.  Raising interest rates would encourage further savings, possibly cause a recession, and increasing distortions, notably in the government deficits.

 

Raising interest rates is one way of dealing with an overheating economy.  Another way is government austerity, either by reducing spending (not advisable considering the US infrastructure needs) or raising taxes.  Trump's tax cut for rich people and already cash-rich corporations is the opposite of what the economy needs.

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by heybruce

[lannarebirth]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

What's wrong with recessions?  Unemployment, bankruptcies, declining tax revenues and increasing demands for government services, stuff like that.

 

If I understand you correctly, you think there should be a recession just because it is the natural order of things.  That is one view, not shared by all. 

 

An alternative view of the low interest rates is that they are caused by a surplus of savings, both by developing economies (primarily China) eager to maintain cash buffers against another 1997 style crisis, and major companies enjoying record profits and sitting on them rather than investing them.  Raising interest rates would encourage further savings, possibly cause a recession, and increasing distortions, notably in the government deficits.

 

Raising interest rates is one way of dealing with an overheating economy.  Another way is government austerity, either by reducing spending (not advisable considering the US infrastructure needs) or raising taxes.  Trump's tax cut for rich people and already cash-rich corporations is the opposite of what the economy needs.

 

 

I'll give you that Trump's tax "reform" wasn't nearly comprehensive enough and that it failed at the top end and will likely lead to greater budget shortfalls in a year or two, but that first paragraph reads like something out of The Economist. A periodical that has done more damage to people's wealth than any other. I don't think they've ever got a major turn in the economy right.

 

Interest rates are going to get raised whether the Fed leads or lags the market. You may have inadvertantly pinpointed when America began its decline; when people accepted the notion that savings are bad for your economic health.

 

You're probably thinking of the "Paradox of Thrift" with regard to savings.  That is a warning with respect to savings during a recession, not during an expansion.

Edited January 24, 2018 by lannarebirth

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I'll give you that Trump's tax "reform" wasn't nearly comprehensive enough and that it failed at the top end and will likely lead to greater budget shortfalls in a year or two, but that first paragraph reads like something out of The Economist. A periodical that has done more damage to people's wealth than any other. I don't think they've ever got a major turn in the economy right.

 

Interest rates are going to get raised whether the Fed leads or lags the market. You may have inadvertantly pinpointed when America began its decline; when people accepted the notion that savings are bad for your economic health.

 

You're probably thinking of the "Paradox of Thrift" with regard to savings.  That is a warning with respect to savings during a recession, not during an expansion.

I have greater faith in the expertise of The Economist than whatever expertise you claim.  Perhaps you could improve your credibility by identifying what is incorrect in that first paragraph.

 

I didn't post that America was saving too much.  Where did you get that idea?

[lannarebirth]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I have greater faith in the expertise of The Economist than whatever expertise you claim.  Perhaps you could improve your credibility by identifying what is incorrect in that first paragraph.

 

I didn't post that America was saving too much.  Where did you get that idea?

What was wrong with it was that you failed to mention that recessions remove excesses while at the same time creating opportunities.  That's what makes an economy healthy.  Most of my networth was created by taking advantage of the opportunities that down cycles provide. You know, like Warren Buffet does.  I can't think of anything worse for keeping poor people poor than never getting a pullback that allows them to build wealth. An ever expanding economy just leaves them further and further behind.

[heybruce]

13 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

What was wrong with it was that you failed to mention that recessions remove excesses while at the same time creating opportunities.  That's what makes an economy healthy.  Most of my networth was created by taking advantage of the opportunities that down cycles provide. You know, like Warren Buffet does.  I can't think of anything worse for keeping poor people poor than never getting a pullback that allows them to build wealth. An ever expanding economy just leaves them further and further behind.

Warren Buffet isn't poor, you know that don't you?

 

I don't know what world you live in, but in the world I live in the poor people suffer the most during recessions, and are in no position to make stock market investments after they lose their jobs and possibly homes.

[Jingthing]

The "malignant normality" of trump being trump.

 

 

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Warren Buffet isn't poor, you know that don't you?

 

I don't know what world you live in, but in the world I live in the poor people suffer the most during recessions, and are in no position to make stock market investments after they lose their jobs and possibly homes.

I'm not talking about the stock market, but homes, sure. What allows people, rich or poor, to keep their homes in downturns is equity. Initial equity comes from savings. If it doesn't it is merely speculation on the future value of your home. The last financial crisis in housing was a direct result of people either buying homes with little down(equity) or pulling equity out of their homes to consume, speculate or otherwise live beyond their means. This was done by rich and poor alike. People like me bought those homes and commercial buildings. Pretty good for a kid from the projects.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by lannarebirth

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I'm not talking about the stock market, but homes, sure. What allows people, rich or poor, to keep their homes in downturns is equity. Initial equity comes from savings. If it doesn't it is merely speculation on the future value of your home. The last financial crisis in housing was a direct result of people eother buying homes with little down(equity) or pulling equity out of their homes to consume, speculate or otherwise live beyond their means. This was done by rich and poor alike. People like me bought those homes and commercial buildings. Pretty good for a kid from the projects.

You are still advocating recessions because they create buying opportunities for people with disposable income, not because they are good for the overall population. 

 

The last financial crisis was caused by many things, but a significant driver was banks making NINJA loans--no income, job or assets loan--to anyone.  Banks then packaged these dud loans with some solid loans and used compliant ratings agencies to pass them off as investment grade.  The banks sold these turd sandwich loan bundles, then made more NINJA loans.  It caused housing inflation and excessive debt.  The Economist, which you apparently hold in low regard, was warning about the housing bubble years before the crisis.

 

Obama imposed regulations to prevent this kind of reckless bank lending from happening again, and Trump is rescinding these regulation.  Obama caused economic stability, which was good for most people but not for opportunists who like market instability.  Trump is laying the ground work for another crisis, which will hurt a lot of people but present investment opportunities for you.

 

In short, you are trying to present your interests as being for the greater good.  I'm not buying it.

[lannarebirth]

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You are still advocating recessions because they create buying opportunities for people with disposable income, not because they are good for the overall population. 

 

 

I'm not saying it is good for the overall population, all the time, I'm saying it is good for a healthy long term economy and that is good for the overall population. It is up to individual members of the population to determine if they are willing do do what is necessary to prosper in that economy. Some will prosper and some will not. That's what the safety net is for. You speak of people as if they were brain addled cripples whom have no self determination of their own futures. Yeah, it is harder if you're coming from a long way back but economic mobility is still possible in America compared to most other places. Immigrants certainly believe that. I wonder when the native Americans stopped believing that.

[Skywalker69]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The "malignant normality" of trump being trump.

 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5385712/donald-trump-says-giving-birth-in-ninth-month-is-wrong-in-latest-gaffe-at-anti-abortion-rally/

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I'm not saying it is good for the overall population, all the time, I'm saying it is good for a healthy long term economy and that is good for the overall population. It is up to individual members of the population to determine if they are willing do do what is necessary to prosper in that economy. Some will prosper and some will not. That's what the safety net is for. You speak of people as if they were brain addled cripples whom have no self determination of their own futures. Yeah, it is harder if you're coming from a long way back but economic mobility is still possible in America compared to most other places. Immigrants certainly believe that. I wonder when the native Americans stopped believing that.

You have yet to give a credible reason for why recessions are "good for a healthy long term economy", one that stands up to a cursory analysis.  The only "good" thing you've come up with is that they present buying opportunities for people with disposable income, but these opportunities come at the expense of working people and people that make the kind of long-term investments that a solid economy depends on. 

 

You haven't been specific about the excesses you keep referring to.  The excesses of the 2007 financial crisis were caused by the moral hazard of banks being allowed to shuffle money around, taking a cut with each exchange, but keeping no skin in the game.  Requiring banks to maintain a significant financial stake in the loans they make would greatly reduce the moral hazard, but banks and Republicans are against that.

 

Is the safety net you refer to the one with big holes in it, and that Republicans want to take away?

[lannarebirth]

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You have yet to give a credible reason for why recessions are "good for a healthy long term economy", one that stands up to a cursory analysis.  The only "good" thing you've come up with is that they present buying opportunities for people with disposable income, but these opportunities come at the expense of working people and people that make the kind of long-term investments that a solid economy depends on. 

 

You haven't been specific about the excesses you keep referring to.  The excesses of the 2007 financial crisis were caused by the moral hazard of banks being allowed to shuffle money around, taking a cut with each exchange, but keeping no skin in the game.  Requiring banks to maintain a significant financial stake in the loans they make would greatly reduce the moral hazard, but banks and Republicans are against that.

 

Is the safety net you refer to the one with big holes in it, and that Republicans want to take away?

 

Most new startups are created during recessions, bringing that "creative destruction" talking heads like to talk about. But have it your way, maybe rewarding the efficient and inefficient alike, savers and spendthrifts alike will  lead to that "permanent plateau of prosperity" as some dead economist once opined. Or maybe as Keynes said  prior to the Great Depression " We will not have any more crashes in our time" .

[heybruce]

20 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Most new startups are created during recessions, bringing that "creative destruction" talking heads like to talk about. But have it your way, maybe rewarding the efficient and inefficient alike, savers and spendthrifts alike will  lead to that "permanent plateau of prosperity" as some dead economist once opined. Or maybe as Keynes said  prior to the Great Depression " We will not have any more crashes in our time" .

What sources tell you that "Most new startups are created during recessions"?

 

Recessions punish the efficient and inefficient alike, competition rewards the efficient at the expense of the inefficient.

 

You are replying to things I never posted, and making up reasons why recessions are good that don't make sense.

 

We get it; you like recessions because you have disposable income and you think recessions present investment opportunities.  That does make recessions good in general.  Your buying opportunities come at the expense of the larger economy.

Edited January 25, 2018 by heybruce

[Kieran00001]

24 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Most new startups are created during recessions, bringing that "creative destruction" talking heads like to talk about. But have it your way, maybe rewarding the efficient and inefficient alike, savers and spendthrifts alike will  lead to that "permanent plateau of prosperity" as some dead economist once opined. Or maybe as Keynes said  prior to the Great Depression " We will not have any more crashes in our time" .

 

If that were the case then why have seen a steady decline in startups since the financial crisis.  Startups need loans, during recessions the banks don't give as many loans, think.

[lannarebirth]

double post

Edited January 25, 2018 by lannarebirth