Thought I would throw the anti-Trump folks a bone...
Poll indicates People less confident about Trump's capabilities than Other Recent Presidents
Poll indicates People less confident about Trump's capabilities than Other Recent Presidents
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
Why Corporations Are Helping Donald Trump Lie About Jobs
do you have confidence in Trump ? are you still glad you voted for him? I am still unable to type the word president in front of his name.
Listening to Trump or listening to Clinton...
Both would have grated on me.
So I am still happy that I did not vote for Clinton.
Hopefully we have better choices in 2020.
I also hear the proposition that water is wet polls well.
--Hiram
Hiram, so does the proposition that "dihydrogen monoxide" is a dangerous chemical, causing hundreds of deaths per year, and should be banned.
Impeaching Trump
So Trump is helping the US Union Employees at our expense, I wonder if the Liberal American consumers will begin to by buying their cars???
CNN Ford Plant
CNN Trump Threatens GM
"Large tariffs would mean that Americans would pay more. When President Ronald Reagan put a quota on the number of cars Japan could ship to the United States, American carmakers hiked prices by $1,000 on average, knowing they would face less foreign competition.
Any tariff would also not likely be limited to American automakers like GM or Ford. If that were the case, those cars would be more expensive than others who also produce in Mexico and sell here, like Honda, Toyota and Volkswagen.
Ford and GM would then be left open to losing in their home market to foreign competitors -- a consequence experts say probably wouldn't bode well for Trump."
CNN Trump Disagrees with GOP Ethics Decision
Laurie,
My opinion is that you should keep an open mind.
He is definitely different, however we definitely need different in office.
President-elect Donald Trump is still for sale
also why do we need different when Obama has an outstanding record on so many things?
Outstanding? Yes. Helpful? Absolutely not. He should be happy if Trump manages to reduce his "legacy" to being our first half-black President and nothing more. So should we.
Don't you 2 ever get tired of seeing the opposing President as the Devil?
Quite the opposite. I agree with Trump that Obama is probably a 'very nice man.' It just seems he screws up everything he touches and then blames somebody else.
The only concern I have about Trump is that he won't move fast enough, cannot get past Congressional Democrat obstruction, or get past Congressional Republican squeamishness to do the right things.
Trump is not a normal president.
A year to protect democracy
and about Obama's positive record and no need to change from dem leadership:
A Final Pre-Election Report on the Economy
More than 1,100 law school professors nationwide oppose Sessions’s nomination as attorney general
Laurie,
Most of Drum's points would have happened with any President. The business / economic cycle just swings like that. In this case the recovery is slower but it has been longer. I am not sure why Jerry dislikes Obama's actions so much? I think he was an okay President.
As for bashing Trump... Maybe you should wait until he has been in office for awhile. Your Left leaning news sources may cause you a heart attack before he is even inaugurated.
Laurie, thanks. I can draw a few inferences from your cite.
1) We have too many law professors
2) We have too many knee-jerk liberal law professors
3) Democrats don't seem to want to argue qualifications on any of Trump's nominees, they seem to go straight to the politics of personal destruction and there, facts be d*****d.
4) Democrats proclaimed loud and long that Obama was "entitled" to his cabinet picks, and the GOP quickly confirmed almost all of them. Now apparently obstruction is the moral imperative. How odd.
"This isn’t obstruction on substance, on qualifications, it's just to gum up the works," Mr. Obama said.
Wonder who he was talking about?
Laurie I cannot post charts here and the full economic report is quite long. Let me summarize the important chart. The average post-recession recovery is complete two years after the recession begins. Five years in (the last point in the chart) the Obama recovery was still 1% below the start of the recession, and 11% below the average recovery. The growth rate of the economy since then is lower than it should be and continues to put us further and further behind where we should be.
Median household income is down. Workforce participation is down. "Real" unemployment is way up. Thank goodness real people saw the Obama economy for what it was and voted for a change.
"Now apparently obstruction is the moral imperative. How odd."
I'm confused as to why you find that odd. I have two words for you: Merrick Garland.
Joel
"The average post-recession recovery is complete two years after the recession begins."
You would be better off comparing it to The Great Depression, because there are no recessions that compare.
Joel
"I'm confused as to why you find that odd." It is odd because Democrats have been wildly hypocritical on the subject. Perhaps you are right. That isn't odd at all, rather typical, actually.
I can compare anything I want, and I count 12 official recessions since the Great Depression. And we aren't really comparing recessions, we are comparing recoveries, of which Obama's is the lowest and slowest.
"And we aren't really comparing recessions, we are comparing recoveries, of which Obama's is the lowest and slowest."
Do try to pay attention this time. Comparing the most recent recovery to the others is stupid because the recession was not like the others. It's surprising to have to explain reality to Conservatives...well...no, that's par for the course.
Joel
"Democrats have been wildly hypocritical on the subject."
That must be a heavy rock you live under.
Joel
"Obama's is the lowest and slowest."
You forgot longest.
Joel
Jerry,
Just give us a web address / page numbers and we will take a look at the charts in the long document.
As I have discussed before, recently the economic cycle is ~9 years long. Bumps occurred in 1981, 1991, 2001, 2008, ????. So I would say slow and steady is much better than what Bush did. By cutting taxes too much he minimized the 2001 recession, which made the 2008 recession much more painful.
As for Facts and Data. The Great Recession lasted only 1 year and 6 months.
Joel,
Enough with the drama. The 2008 recession was NOTHING compared to other past economic events. The GDP reduction was only -5.1% compared to -26.7 during the Great Recession. Seems to me Americans have just gotten spoiled and soft.
Jerry,
Two more notes.
The recovery of was about the same as the others since it was deeper.
Also, please remember that the GOP House severely constrained Obama's plans for investing in infrastructure and stimulating the recovery. They worked hard to ensure he appeared to fail. Now Trump thinks he will be allowed to be a spend thrift. It will be interesting to see if Congress will let him.
"Enough with the drama. The 2008 recession was NOTHING compared to other past economic events. The GDP reduction was only -5.1% compared to -26.7 during the Great Recession. Seems to me Americans have just gotten spoiled and soft."
What is your point here? I was arguing that it was the worst of the recessions...the very thing jerry was making comparisons to. These are facts. It was the longest and deepest recession since the end of WWII. jerry seems happy to compare the recoveries of the lesser recessions to this great recession, but unwilling to acknowledge the depth and length of this recession. You call me out, then repeat what I said.
Joel
Joel,
You are correct that it was a hair worse than the 1973-75 recession. But nothing like the Recession of 1945 or many that came before. I am calling you out because it was not as disastrous as Liberals like to make it sound.
Just as it was not as long lasting as Jerry thinks.
"I am calling you out because it was not as disastrous as Liberals like to make it sound."
Thanks, Obama! :-)
Joel
Interesting History
Bush was trying to spend our way out of it before Obama got in Office.
Then Obama doubled down on the plan.
I truly think that noticeable recession every 8 years to keep people grounded. Bush using tax cuts to avoid the 2001 recession seemed to make people over confident. Therefore they just bumping up that housing bubble with a passion.
Tax cuts or more generally, additional revenue simply do not ensure economic growth by themselves. See my favorite video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tw688Kbjy4&t=13s
Despite increased profitability in the business portrayed in the video, management refuses to expand. Rather than use the money to increase production, they simply hold on to it, or more likely, fritter it away possibly in executive salaries.
This really was the story of the Bush years, and to some extent, the story of the American economy since the Bush presidency. Business has learned that it can make more money by cutting costs rather than growing their businesses. And it is worth noting that this attitude is perfectly consistent with and helps to explain the increasing income disparity we see in our economy, as managers learn they can raise their income simply by appropriating to themselves a portion of the cost savings they are using to maintain profitability.
--Hiram
Hirams Video Link
Actually the compensation of many managers is based on profitability and stock price increase. That is because us citizens who have 401K's, IRAs, college funds, etc want the maximum returns and only reward companies who earn them for us. And if your business fails to perform... We run away from you and someone may buy you out.
And growing volume and margin is always job #1, but it is pretty hard when the consumers are determined to pay as little as possible for the "best" product. And they are just as happy to buy from the low cost country companies and suppliers.
Why else do you think the Cabela Tractors are from a South Korean company instead of John Deere.
"Cabela's is a retailer of outdoor equipment in the United States. In 2013, Cabela's began selling Cabela's-branded tractors built by TYM. The Cabela's tractors are part of a Wildlife and Land Management sales department that sells tractors, ATVs, feed, and accessories."
Now I guess we could force John Deere to design and build all of their products in the USA, while allowing customers to buy lower cost products... But then it will only be a matter of time before John Deere goes bankrupt. And more jobs are lost...
"Just as it was not as long lasting as Jerry thinks."
Huge difference between officially coming out of recession and resuming normal growth. What has made the difference in the Obama recession is that growth never picked back up.
"Now I guess we could force John Deere to design and build all of their products in the USA, while allowing customers to buy lower cost products... But then it will only be a matter of time before John Deere goes bankrupt. And more jobs are lost... "
OR... We could eliminate all the excessive taxes, burdensome regulations, and the penalties and uncertainty of capital investment that prevent American businesses from successfully competing. They CAN, you know, given the chance. Government just needs to get out of the way.
Looks pretty good to me
Government getting out of they way gave us HUGE swings before 1945... I am not sure we want to cut with reckless abandon, but I agree that improvement can and must be made if we want to be globally competitive and successful.
I don't think it has to be "with reckless abandon." Pass the FAIR tax and our corporate tax rate goes to zero, lowest in the world. The end of withholding means a massive capital inflow to fuel business investment. Meanwhile, our goods sold overseas become 23% cheaper, while imported goods become 23% more expensive (to match US-produced prices, or even higher). Seems pretty unalloyed goodness.
Remember the old saying.
"If it looks too good to believe... It probably is."
What are the downsides and risks to your proposal? Every proposal has them.
I have looked for them and cannot find them. The biggest objections seem to be these.
-- It doesn't soak the rich. They pay at a higher rate, and more in tax dollars, with no loopholes, and especially if they enjoy an extravagant lifestyle, but they don't pay at ten TIMES the rate of the lower middle class like in the current system.
-- It is far different than what we do now, so much so it requires a Constitutional Amendment. In other words, it is hard to pass into law.
-- It lets people have TOO MUCH money. Without withholding of taxes, people might spend foolishly. On the other hand, when they spend, they get taxed.
-- Congress loses its ability to hand out favors to special interests through the tax code, and to micromanage our personal choices.
-- It lets people see EXACTLY how much tax they are paying, and lets them (somewhat) control how much they pay by what they buy, e.g. Cadillac or Chevrolet.
Post a Comment