American Politics

[EihTooms]

Biden proved today that without the teleprompter he is just plain stupid. When is the last time a president called out for a dead person to be acknowledged in the crowd. Brandon at his finest.

I once heard a twice Impeached defeated so-called potus mistake 4,996 living American voters for corpses:

Trump claims 5,000 dead people voted in Georgia but the real number is four.
Claim was part of push to overturn election but officials confirm four cases, all involving family members submitting votes

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...on-dead-people

And, yeah, he was not using a teleprompter. It was 100% on him.

[Elvis 2008]

One other thing, as I noted below, Obama originally nominated Powell. And the total number of Senate Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, voting against Powell's reappointment this year was six. Thirteen Republicans voted against Powell and one abstained. So exactly why is Powell Trump's man? And why would you give him all the credit or blame for Fed decisions, when there are 7 governors and 12 voting members of the Fed Open Market Committee? And the current bunch is usually mostly in agreement? Is John Roberts the only person on the Supreme Court who matters?

I totally agree, and that is why it is a cheap shot to call Powell, Trump's Powell. Of course, we are all familiar with Eih's constant refrain of Dems good, Republicans bad, and this is another example of it.

Eih stayed long the market even when the Fed was tightening rates. I went short, and the reason is the Fed said they were raising rates. If you watch CNBC, 75% of the discussion there is what is the Fed going to do. It is an economic law that if the Fed raises rates, the overall stock market will go down, and the Fed has been saying literally every week in the clearest language possible, they are raising rates. Hell, one Fed governor even said "good" after the stock market went down.

Eih and I got into about investing and he bragged about his wealth and how smart he was which I avoid like hell. The last thing I want to hear about is why you were right (or more likely lucky) in the past. I do not care that much about track records. Make your case for today. His case was Biden is president. When the Nasdaq was down 20%, he refused to say there was a bear market because the NASDAQ was not a real index; only the S&P 500 is. Of course, the S&P 500 is now in bear territory too.

Looking forward, I think there is still carnage in the market to follow. You do not see the full effect of interest rate hikes for 12 months. The IPO market is totally shut down, the yield curve is badly inverted, capital is drying up, and finally we are seeing some slowdown in demand, and that is going to get much, much worse. The dollar's strength is another huge headwind for the market going forward.

If you get a chance, Tiny, check this out, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA-jOLF2T4c.

This guy Peter Zeihan gives out information I have not seen elsewhere. He makes a compelling case for why Texas is going to be the best place for world growth in the coming decades. In my mind, the USA enters a recession and the rest of the world a depression in the next year.

Why? Well, some people really thought you can just shut down world production for two years, print a bunch of money, and everything is going to be fine. Yeesh. The economic effects of the pandemic have just been delayed.

And if you read what Eih wrote, you will see the pandemic was Trump's fault too.

[Paulie97]

In the words of the late great Steve Jobs, "Details matter. " Analysis of economic policy and history are more complicated than "Democrat good, Republican bad..

I'll add that this "bothsider" pejorative gets plenty of misuse. Attempts to examine many variables or to find truth wherever it may be found is a matter of integrity, and depending on your field, a professional responsibility. Calling out the bias and fallacies of partisans isn't always "bothsiderism. " In fact calling it such often serves as an ad hominem that short circuits legitimate discussion.

[EihTooms]

In the words of the late great Steve Jobs, "Details matter. " Analysis of economic policy and history are more complicated than "Democrat good, Republican bad..

I see you're scratching and clawing at every detail you can dig up to demonstrate that those Great Repub Recessions and Massive Job Losses over the past 100 years or so really weren't all the Repubs' fault or, oh look, that 25th crank of the meat grinder out of thousands in the sausage factory of legislation by a Repub and not a Dem produce a few jobs too and all that typical pro Repub Bothsiderism stuff.

But I'll bet even the dead Steve Jobs would concede that one's intentions, agenda and goals matter much, much more to an outcome than dumb luck here and there and interesting but ultimately meaningless anecdotal details.

Here's the deal: Repubs are at war with this government by, for and of the people. Have been for many decades. Their previous iconic Repub lord and savior, Reagan, popularized a war whoop against America; "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. " Reagan wasn't talking about a dictatorship or a monarchy in some faraway country. He was talking about America. And in America, great crises are solved by us, the government, we, the people.

It was not a giant leap at all to go from there to the current iconic Repub lord and savior's literal war against the American form of government.

So it is blissfully easy to predict that a, say, Fed Chairman originally appointed by a Repub and that had to be kept by the incoming Dem and others to avert even greater disaster at a time of crises would not be very good at his job. Repubs are at war with the Federal Reserve, too, or hadn't you noticed that detail?

When an entire Party is at war with the American government and has been working mightily for decades to prove that it "doesn't work", please explain why on god's green earth an administration of that Party would ever appoint someone as Secretary of a department, Fed Chairman, judges, staffers, you name it, that would do a great job of it and show how well this government works?

Yes, this is quite the opposite of the Dem Party agenda. They actually want to prove that this government of, by and for the people works and works very well to produce positive results.

Do you honestly believe for one minute a Repub administration within memory has wanted a team working hard to show the American people and the world that this government of, by and for the American people that they have been at philosophical and now literal war against for decades and decades "works" great, hey everybody, join the club?

Of course, that doesn't happen.

There are thousands of decisions that need to be made by a POTUS and an administration every day. If your underlying philosophy and intellectual goal and agenda is to prove "government is not the solution to our problems" in America, that we really should just cater to the financial wishes of and advantages to those kindly corporate CEOs, top income margins and business owners because of course they'll do the right thing for America and all the good they do will come "trickling down" to everyone else, then by the end of each day you will have inched the country closer to the next crisis and not further away from it. And that is so even if one of those detailed decisions accidentally turns out not to be so bad.

You cannot then be surprised, puzzled or bewildered enough by the pattern of Great Repub Recessions and Massive Jobs Destruction vs Great Dem Recoveries, Expansions and Jobs Creation over the past 100 years to insist that if we just look at this or that silly detail, one out of a thousand cranks on the meat grinder of legislation, this or that perceived "hypocrisy", slight or imperfection, oh the demographics here, oh what that Senator did or said, magical economic cycles and so on unless you are just trying to stick your head in the sand and pretend the truth about it isn't the truth.

Steve Jobs would have kicked out an employee in a nanosecond if the overwhelming evidence was that employee was bent on making sure his company was a failure and decidedly not on making it a success. And he wouldn't have given a shit about some relatively insignificant detail. I doubt he would have even stood still for one minute to factor in such a detail before kicking out the traitor.

[Cali Guy]

Wait and see until after the bloodbath of Nov 8 LMAO seems they can't wait that long.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/u...-walorski.html

Biden proved today that without the teleprompter he is just plain stupid. When is the last time a president called out for a dead person to be acknowledged in the crowd. Brandon at his finest.

[MarquisdeSade1]

Wait and see until after the bloodbath of Nov 8 LMAO seems they can't wait that long.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/u...-walorski.html

[JustTK]

I am sure you have your own reasons for linking to such BS. ... I didn't watch the video because a. Nasal American accent like hers make me puke..

I didn't bother with the rest of your comments because your first comment carries such a strong contradiction.

[Spidy]

US immigration... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E_CbkA0Enk ...

I am sure you have your own reasons for linking to such BS ... I didn't watch the video because ...

Outta all that rant and ramble, I'll agree, that QAnon/Repub/Bothsidesist, will offer up BS as evidence of what I don't know.

As he's still yet to formulate an opinion of anything.

I didn't watch said video, click on it or link to the "bothsidesist" BS either! Don't plan to either!

Great comments here ...

While the "bothsidesist" is at it, consider the fact that by extension, one could also equally blame ALL RELIGIONS, for all the ilk in the world, too.

Go think on it, in your "bothsidesism" neoliberal corner! An opinion would be much appreciated.

[Paulie97]

In the words of the late great Steve Jobs, "Details matter. " Analysis of economic policy and history are more complicated than "Democrat good, Republican bad. ".

Without a doubt.

[JustTK]

Great discusion here on the current US immigration issues. Causes, solutions, etc (first half of program).

Someone else watched this video and commented on it. Great comments here from Craig Jardula:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAc23r2TwEU

[Tiny 12]

Now that Powell is being demonized, it is not Biden's Powell but Trump's Powell.

One other thing, as I noted below, Obama originally nominated Powell. And the total number of Senate Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, voting against Powell's reappointment this year was six. Thirteen Republicans voted against Powell and one abstained. So exactly why is Powell Trump's man? And why would you give him all the credit or blame for Fed decisions, when there are 7 governors and 12 voting members of the Fed Open Market Committee? And the current bunch is usually mostly in agreement? Is John Roberts the only person on the Supreme Court who matters?

[Tiny 12]

I have no issue with your facts, Tiny. Thing is Trump did huge giveaways too and the Fed added $3 trillion to its balance sheet. Outside of oil, I would say the blame with inflation goes three ways then: on Trump, on Biden, and on the Fed with each getting 1/3 of the blame outside of energy. Add in energy and at least half of the inflation mess is on Biden.

I just do not want to engage in the cheap shots like Eih does, calling Chair Powell, Trump appointee Powell. Powell was kept on as Chair by Biden: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...as-vice-chair/.

This is what I call the Dems here dumb Dems. In their eyes, the only bad people in government are Republicans. Now that Powell is being demonized, it is not Biden's Powell but Trump's Powell.

You've got a good point Elvis. Total stimulus spending was around $5 trillion, and the over half of the occurred during the Trump administration. McConnell and Senate Republicans, at least by December of 2020, were more than ready to cut off the spigot, but ended up compromising with Trump and Pelosi to keep the funds flowing. I'm not a fan of putting all the blame on specific individuals, but would perhaps put slightly more blame on the politicians than the Fed. And of course commodity prices and supply chain glitches hurt too.

[Tiny 12]

Yep. Some people are fine at one job and crappy at others. Eisenhower was a lucky General but as president he presided over three Recessions and one of the worst jobs creation records of any president in modern history. Go figure.

The Great Reagan Recession.

Below is a valuable piece of contemporaneous history in real time as it was happening. Later, revisionist historians, comfy Repubs and pro Repub Bothsiders such as yourself would lay it all on the Fed's monetary policy and leave Reagan's Repub agenda and economic philosophy out of it.

But the Fed had tightened the money supply and raised rates even more under Carter and we didn't plunge into a Great Recession then. Presidents matter. They can promote measures that either contribute to reducing if not narrowly avoiding economic disaster or light a flame to trigger one or do nothing or do something that only serves to exacerbate a downturn.

Dems are masters of the former, far more positive approach. Remember Obama's Cash For Clunkers and the extraordinary measures he took to keep auto sales going and rescue the auto industry so as to deftly avoid worsening the Great Repub Recession he inherited from GWB? Repubs laughed at him and derided him for it. "Stop the bailouts. Just let it happen. Laissez Faire". They weren't any kinder to his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed and passed in late February 2009. "he will only make things worse! In fact, he did make things worse"!

MittWitt Romney was still claiming such a ridiculous thing in 2012.

By mid June 2009, not only was the Great Repub GWB Recession not "worse", we were pulling out of it and heading to one of the best, recession-free, job creating runs in history.

By contrast, disproportionately high tax cuts for the top margins appears to be the all-purpose solution for every problem a Repub sees if he sees a problem at all.

And that's what Reagan did in 1981. It is not what Carter did in 1980. It is not what any Dem would have done on the mistaken belief that "Supply-Side / Trickle-Down" policies would improve anything in the economy. In all likelihood, Carter and most other Dems would have found a way to extend those auto rebates and more. Demand-Side economic stimulus, not Supply-Side policy.

Reagan just sat on his pony and waited for his Repub Coolidge-Hoovernomics tax cuts for the rich to do what they always do. And, sure enough, they did. LOL. Nothing.

So, even though the Fed rates were higher under Carter a year earlier and they were trending downward under Reagan a year later, Carter's recession was barely a blip on the screen while Reagan's was one of the longest, deepest and most damaging in history. While he and every other "Supply-Side / Trickle-Down" believer was waiting for their all-purpose solution to work its mythical and nonexistent magic.

And waiting. And waiting.

WHAT CAUSED THE RECESSION
November 24, 1981

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/24/b...recession.html

You're going to find very few economists who would agree with you, that high interest rates, to control inflation, weren't what caused the 1981/1982 recession. Or that the Economic Recovery Act of 1981, passed by Democrats and Republicans and signed by Reagan, exacerbated the recession. I have been known to read CBO reports for fun, and invariably tax cuts are associated with higher GDP growth. The incremental growth in some instances may not be that significant, but cuts don't cause GDP to be less than it would be otherwise. Furthermore, the 1981 act basically cut the maximum rate from 70% to 50%. The only people in favor of 70% maximum rates are Progressives and people like Saez and Zucman, who believe the revenue maximizing tax rate is about 75%. First of all, I believe that's bull shit, the maximizing rate is lower. And second I don't believe the chief end of man, or upper income earners, is to maximize government revenues, as I don't believe in slavery. And third, I believe the federal government, as opposed to my local and state governments, flushes a lot of the money I send it down the drain. And finally fourth, by eliminating loopholes and lowering the motivation to shelter income from extortionate taxation, the changes in tax policy during the Reagan administration may have increased the amount paid by upper income earners and even increased the progressivity of our tax system.

The tax cuts during the Bush and Reagan administration likewise may have increased the progressivity of the tax system. If you just look at tax rate tables, you'd say they did, as the % cut in rates for lower income levels was greater than for higher levels.

There's lots of blame to go around for the 2008/2009 recession, and our anemic recovery coming out of it, which resulted in higher deficits as a result of bailouts, stimulus spending and lower government revenues. Who do you blame? A lot of people and institutions -- politicians, regulators, mortgage companies, and investment banks among others. And perhaps most of all Americans who thought it was reasonable to buy $500,000 houses on $50,000 per year paychecks.

As to the NYT article, that's hilarious. The 1981 act was passed in August, and so by November, 1981, three months later, they hadn't ended the recession. No shit Sherlock (referring to the writer, not you.) Hell, the effect would have been limited to a reduction in a grand total of one quarterly estimated tax payment.

[Tiny 12]

And then with the wind at your back you jumped through 3 flaming hoops in a row and, behold, Great Repub Recessions and Massive Job Losses are no different than Great Dem Recoveries, Expansions and Historic Job Gains!

Fine. Then you might as well stop voting from now on because you can't tell the difference in the results of either Party anyway. Too many nit-picky irrelevant details have led you unavoidably to that conclusion. Congratulations.

In the words of the late great Steve Jobs, "Details matter. " Analysis of economic policy and history are more complicated than "Democrat good, Republican bad. ".

[PedroMorales]

Great discusion here on the current US immigration issues. Causes, solutions, etc (first half of program).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E_CbkA0Enk

Note, these anti-American, US-hating presenters do not take sides. They reflect on ALL bad policy. All government parties are to blame. And these 2 should be hung, drawn and quartered for their disloyalty to the flag.

No doubt no one here will be able to credit this video bcos it not biased to one party or the other.

I am sure you have your own reasons for linking to such BS. Though the USA stinks, there are Egyptian plovers who feed off it. Interesting who gets deplatformed and de monetized and who does not. I didn't watch the video because a. Nasal American accent like hers make me puke (did someone break her nose or is it an American thing)? Be. Directionless yap yap.

I feel, tin hat foil time perhaps, the USA promotes its own micro oppositions so it can control it. One recent case is that of Caleb Maupin, an American leftie (sic). Google him and you will see he was running a cult, turning his junkie comrades into hookers and dominatrixes, and was into being spanked. Like wtf. The moderator has threads like this for family value apple pie reasons but when alternative Americans are the biggest sex freaks in the room.

Scott Ritter, done on a kiddie charge, most of the independent journalists in Ukraine seem to be sex criminals of one sort or another. And Joe Biden does like the little ones; he goes way back with them.

So, who but the desperate and the Jeffrey Epsteins would want to migrate to the land of the free and the food banks?

World War cannot come soon enough.

Biden has asked all US citizens to vacate Russia. Hopefully, they will return to Hamburger Land and stay there.