The Trump Presidency – 2016

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think you've listed starting deficit spending to ending deficit spending by president (lots of years inbetween)?

Lets try this chart for gross federal debt by presidential term (approx in the middle of page).

History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia

Plenty of blame to go around for sure which is my point. And the total actual deficit hasn't decreased.

re: Starve the beast, my problem with your statement is in highlights.


Look at how wiki defines it

Starve the beast - Wikipedia


Let's not make it sound as if its just all entitlement spending (medicaid, medicare, social security). "Crisis" over dramatizes it, its basically hey we are running a deficit, let's cut spending.

If you argument is that it hasn't worked, I wouldn't disagree with you.

Your first point was that GOPers are more fiscally responsible than Dems. The trend since Carter has been yearly deficits drop during Dem presidencies and rise during GOP presidencies.

And starve the beast is about crisis, that's why not a single elected GOPer is complaining about a boom-time trillion dollar deficit. The plan is to use the deficit to force cuts, so the bigger the better. And, yes, it's primarily about entitlements because that's where the spending is. Defense is off the table, so cutting entitlements is the only way to make big cuts to the budget.

You put the two together and it's why the GOP refused Obama's grand bargain. They didn't really want reduced deficits with modest entitlement cuts. The goal is gutting entitlements. They've been after that since LBJ or FDR. The problem is those cuts are extremely unpopular, so the theory is that only a fiscal crisis will move the public in such a way as to allow big entitlement cuts.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Your first point was that GOPers are more fiscally responsible than Dems.

Really? Read again.

3) Fiscal responsibility. Now I know this is not true obviously but at least the GOP parrot it more than the Dems

I think I was pretty clear when I used "parrot" that it was all just talk. If not, sorry.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

For sure "illegal immigrants & ME refugees/asylum seekers are bad" but the war isn't against legal immigration overall. I do know Trump/Miller wants to limit legal citizenship against any green card holders that uses social services etc. but for your statement to be true, it would be stop immigration which is not what has been proposed.

Except that the Trump Administration's immigration strategy hasn't just been "build the wall" but cut ALL legal immigration. It hasn't been about 'limiting their access to services.'

The Adminstration has sharply reduced the ability of immigrants to seek asylum from domestic and gang/militia violence.

There was the travel ban, which didn't actually target any of the countries whose nationals had been involved in terror attacks against the US, but DID target several countries in the Middle East which didn't have business dealings with Trump.

The refugee program has been sharply curtailed.

The number of green cards issued in the last two years is down, cumulatively, about 15% from pre-Trump years.

President Trump sought to cut legal immigration in half in return for legal protections for Dreamers.

Agree with "tax cuts are good" but would add for context "tax cuts are good because it helps grow the economy and helps stock market" (and both are going pretty good so far)

Except that tax cuts don't grow the economy. They, largely, end up lining the pockets of shareholders through stock buybacks and such. If you're well-off, you get to double dip off the Trump tax cuts because not only were your taxes cut, but corporations you've invested in also received tax cuts, and shared that out with their shareholders. But those tax cuts did not lead to new jobs being created as an explicit result of the cuts - many of the announcements had been made previously, and got dusted off in the aftermath of the passage of the cuts to make it look like they were related when they weren't - and in some cases, companies which benefited heavily from the tax cuts have gone on to cut labor.

Yeah, it's great for the stock market. The stock market doesn't affect take-home of, say, people on hourly wages. It doesn't affect their job security, whether they can afford health insurance, etc. The performance of the economy is reliant on consumer spending, and that's going to be affected far more heavily by things like tariff wars with trading partners and whether the bottom 90% of American earners can afford to purchase luxuries than whether we blow a trillion dollar annual hole in the deficit to make corporate tax cuts permanent.

Third could be changed to "many people who use the social safety net for too long are moochers, let's get the non-legit off the programs"

There was already welfare reform in the '90s under Clinton and a Republican Congress! There is both a short-term and a lifetime limit on one's ability to access TANF. It's not a generational "get on welfare, have babies, and they're on welfare all their lives" thing. But that's how the GOP portrays it. Shit, in Wisconsin, Republicans bought whole hog into the food stamp scare by trying to mandate what recipients can spend their food aid on and trying to tie it to 'the nutritional needs of pregnant women and very young children.' Which, spoiler alert, are pretty explicit and different from what non-pregnant women, dudes, and older children need. But because of the GOP perception that people on food stamps are blowing all that money on cigarettes, booze, and expensive seafood, they try to either cut the program (see: food stamp cut attempts in recent farm bills) or revamp it to make it look like They're Doing Something.

I mean, it's adorable that you want to pretend their motives aren't what they are, but I stand by every word I said. You can rewrite them all you want, but that's just grammar you engage in as a Republican to make yourself feel better.

I would also toss these in:

1) Gun ownership

I love how the word "responsible" is missing there. Yeah, that's absolutely Republicanism. No argument.

2) Many countries are screwing us economically, lets stop that (more Trumpism vs traditional)

Except that they aren't. You know what's screwing us? The evisceration of the middle class by offshoring jobs to countries where corporations can pay pennies on the dollar, and then wondering why American workers can't compete. That's not about China or India or Mexico. That's about CEOs selling their companies' future business prospects down the river over the last 20-30 years so that THEY can reap a big bonus NOW and cash out.

3) Fiscal responsibility. Now I know this is not true obviously but at least the GOP parrot it more than the Dems

The GOP redefine the terms. Fiscal responsibility to the GOP means "cut taxes so that we can claim that government is too big and now we can slash all the spending we don't like but don't you dare claim $600 billion a year is too much to spend on the military."

As others have pointed out, it's the "starve the beast" strategy. Cut taxes, then claim the resultant fiscal emergency as necessity to target the safety net.

If the GOP gave even a single solitary fuck about "fiscal responsibility," we wouldn't have spent so much of the Obama Administration with Republicans claiming that, well, it's no big deal if we default on our debts.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Except that the Trump Administration's immigration strategy hasn't just been "build the wall" but cut ALL legal immigration. It hasn't been about 'limiting their access to services.'

The Adminstration has sharply reduced the ability of immigrants to seek asylum from domestic and gang/militia violence.

There was the travel ban, which didn't actually target any of the countries whose nationals had been involved in terror attacks against the US, but DID target several countries in the Middle East which didn't have business dealings with Trump.

The refugee program has been sharply curtailed.

The number of green cards issued in the last two years is down, cumulatively, about 15% from pre-Trump years.

President Trump sought to cut legal immigration in half in return for legal protections for Dreamers.

I get that Trump wants to eliminate illegal immigration and wants to reduce legal immigration, specifically those he would consider undesirables (e.g. those that are here legally as PR and using social programs). Your statement above said one of the 3 tenets is "immigrants are bad".

It obviously isn't wholesale and unfair to use such a generalization. He/Miller obviously doesn't mind many legal immigrants.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Except that tax cuts don't grow the economy. They, largely, end up lining the pockets of shareholders through stock buybacks and such. If you're well-off, you get to double dip off the Trump tax cuts because not only were your taxes cut, but corporations you've invested in also received tax cuts, and shared that out with their shareholders. But those tax cuts did not lead to new jobs being created as an explicit result of the cuts - many of the announcements had been made previously, and got dusted off in the aftermath of the passage of the cuts to make it look like they were related when they weren't - and in some cases, companies which benefited heavily from the tax cuts have gone on to cut labor.

Yeah, it's great for the stock market. The stock market doesn't affect take-home of, say, people on hourly wages. It doesn't affect their job security, whether they can afford health insurance, etc. The performance of the economy is reliant on consumer spending, and that's going to be affected far more heavily by things like tariff wars with trading partners and whether the bottom 90% of American earners can afford to purchase luxuries than whether we blow a trillion dollar annual hole in the deficit to make corporate tax cuts permanent.

Economy is going well, stock market is going well, unemployment is down etc.

Is that all a direct result of the tax cut, probably not. Is it a result of Trumpism (with some leftover momentum from Obama), and the good/bad environment he has championed, yes. Will it last the next 2-6 years, unknown.

Do some people get left out, yup.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

There was already welfare reform in the '90s under Clinton and a Republican Congress! There is both a short-term and a lifetime limit on one's ability to access TANF. It's not a generational "get on welfare, have babies, and they're on welfare all their lives" thing. But that's how the GOP portrays it. Shit, in Wisconsin, Republicans bought whole hog into the food stamp scare by trying to mandate what recipients can spend their food aid on and trying to tie it to 'the nutritional needs of pregnant women and very young children.' Which, spoiler alert, are pretty explicit and different from what non-pregnant women, dudes, and older children need. But because of the GOP perception that people on food stamps are blowing all that money on cigarettes, booze, and expensive seafood, they try to either cut the program (see: food stamp cut attempts in recent farm bills) or revamp it to make it look like They're Doing Something.

I mean, it's adorable that you want to pretend their motives aren't what they are, but I stand by every word I said. You can rewrite them all you want, but that's just grammar you engage in as a Republican to make yourself feel better.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I do feel better with my revision, thanks.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I love how the word "responsible" is missing there. Yeah, that's absolutely Republicanism. No argument.

Yup, tenet #4 for you to add to the list.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Except that they aren't. You know what's screwing us? The evisceration of the middle class by offshoring jobs to countries where corporations can pay pennies on the dollar, and then wondering why American workers can't compete. That's not about China or India or Mexico. That's about CEOs selling their companies' future business prospects down the river over the last 20-30 years so that THEY can reap a big bonus NOW and cash out.

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. China is chief culprit in my mind. If you don't think China is screwing with us with IP/tech (and other) then let's agree to disagree here. There's economic warfare going, we need to find a way to "win" it. It would be great if the Chinese economy crashed like the Japanese lost 2 decades.

Re: offshoring/outsourcing has more nuances in the context of globalization and the advent of the internet. You are not going to stop all/most globalization and offshoring. Should we offshore nike shoes, clothes - yes, low value and unlikely we can be competitive making them here.

Should we offshore/outsource development of more strategic, thought capital like latest tech from Oracle/MicroSoft etc. - I would say no or at least slow it down considerably to maintain our competitive advantage as long as possible.

Should we offshore steel which has been in the news - I don't know, haven't really studied the situation.

Has offshoring hurt a lot of people? Absolutely, no question. Can we stop all/most offshoring, nope. NAFTA which resulted in a lot of this offshoring was passed by Clinton so its not all GOP.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The GOP redefine the terms. Fiscal responsibility to the GOP means "cut taxes so that we can claim that government is too big and now we can slash all the spending we don't like but don't you dare claim $600 billion a year is too much to spend on the military."

As others have pointed out, it's the "starve the beast" strategy. Cut taxes, then claim the resultant fiscal emergency as necessity to target the safety net.

If the GOP gave even a single solitary fuck about "fiscal responsibility," we wouldn't have spent so much of the Obama Administration with Republicans claiming that, well, it's no big deal if we default on our debts.

I think you must have also misread my POV on GOP & Dem "fiscal responsibility". Don't disagree with you but let's not lay all the blame on the GOP as Dems also contributed to the deficit we have today. See my response #12538 & #12540 to JPhillips couple posts above.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I agree with second sentence but let's be fair. Were the Dems thinking about it during the Obama 8 years?

That deficits weren't a problem early in Obama's presidency because they were needed to get out of a giant financial collapse but they should have been sandwiched between massive tax cuts that needlessly exploded deficits during periods of economic prosperity.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What if I told you Boomers may have always been more conservative?

I'd be interested. The idea that anti-Vietnam boomers "won" the cultural war seems entrenched to someone like me who was born in the 80's & grew up in Boston, but maybe that really was a Hollywood lie (anti-Vietnam war people definitely had the better movies & music!)

Less pithily, I think that graph helps show that yes we've almost always been divided, and it really is the media or social media climate exacerbating things, and not buying into it is the best option.

Shurg, maybe liberal democracy only works when you have the existential threat of a significant other to remind people how they share 90%+ of values. In which case go Alien contact!

Originally Posted by Kodos

'

We'd be much better off in a gridlocked government with Hillary in charge and Congress in the hands of the Republicans. Voting for third party candidates helped get us into this mess (and also cost Al Gore the presidency).

Why? Because we could have both sides screaming at each other while nothing gets done? Because that sounds exactly like what is happening now, except the Democrats have an opening to galvanize public sentiment & control the 2020 map for the next re-districting. (I mean, they'd bungle it even if they don't bungle the elections, but the opportunity with Trump as President instead of HRC may at least push them to a House majority).

Agree with Panerd that your second statement is laughable. Donald Trump was a classic 3rd party candidate who realized he should run under the 2 party system because it gave so much more publicity. Though I do understand why someone with your username dislikes 3rd party candidates

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I've definitely become more liberal. I was President of the College Republicans when I was at Rutgers (now granted NJ Republicans are not the same as Alabama Republicans). I've veered quite a bit farther to the left - mostly because I found religion. Flirted a bit with Christian Socialism and moved more towards a comfortable center-left Christian Democrat (though sometimes those Christian Socialist desires peek back up).

I try to separate my personal views from my natural inclination to stand in opposition to the dumbest people around me - and like you, I was a Northeasterner who had a lot of dumb Democrats around, that now lives in the South where a majority of the people (and thus dumb people) are Republican.

I've always liked to claim I'm a Centrist, but if pressed I'm a socially liberal Libertarian Hawk (who still gets really fed up with the smugness & ends up trolling the worst of the PC crowd... Because the worst of the opposite is so evidently wrong I don't find it worth engaging.)

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

But if someone votes for a candidate that they think is below average in order to do everything they can to stop a candidate that they think is horrible, how does that choice lack integrity? Someone made the small sacrifice of foregoing the opportunity to cast a protest vote in order to try and prevent a horrible person from winning an election. That's not a bad thing.

tl;dr : "Third-party voters are throwing away their vote" and "voting for the lesser of two evils is wrong" are both lazy takes.

I just don't think any of these margins are close enough that having a strong take makes sense. For those of us who understand math and can read we know that our individual vote will NEVER make a difference in any national or statewide race. Perhaps if you're a really gregarious person or jump on a political bandwagon you can change 50? votes, but if not I'm really fatalistic about political outcomes.

Originally Posted by Radii

Yes to all of this. Our voting system is very flawed and lends itself to a "lesser of two evils" situation the vast majority of the time. Without massive reform, which will never happen because the politicians who would have to pass it would be putting themselves at risk by doing so, this is inevitable.

There are voting systems used in other countries that allow for you to pick the candidate that aligns with your beliefs and have it be a more meaningful choice even if that candidate has no chance at winning a majority of votes. We do not have that sadly.

I do think that's the ideal system - one where you designate a Candidate 1, then 2, then 3, and even as much as I'm cynical about the electorate I think people could handle that. Though I don't know exactly how it would work with American politics - would you have 5 Republicans & 5 Democrats & the Libertarian etc on the ballot? It certainly wouldn't end up being "Pick Choice A, the B, amongst HRC, Trump, Gary Johnson & umm, Jill Stein?"

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What's the point of a third party President? Congress will still be either D or R and getting anything done will require the President to largely fall in line with one of the two parties. There may be some movement of one party, but neither the Dems or Reps were ever going to pass a libertarian platform.

And the idea that some Dems and some Reps would come together to form a majority, in that case, is a fantasy.

I don't have any problem with voting affirmatively for any candidate, but I still think the most likely way to achieve whatever change you want is by changing the platform of an established party.

100%

Though I fear having a cult of personality is the easiest way to change things, and unfortunately Trump stumbled (fell face backwards?) into that before we realized it. (And considering the fortunes of the Democratic party during his presidency, I think it's fair to say there was also a cult of personality around Obama as well... I certainly don't think you can pin a cult of personality on GWB, and even the Republican love of Reagan was ex-post facto).

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The myth that people can 'shop around' when they need medical care is something the Republicans tout repeatedly - yet if you've ever tried to ask about the cost for a procedure best of luck getting a straight answer, what I hear is generally is 'well it depends' ...

I'm probably going to pick up US citizenship just so I can vote next election, my vote will go to anyone supporting medicare for all.

Does anyone actually say you can shop around or find the best price on a procedure beyond maybe Dental? I'm willing to believe some politicians are dumb enough to say it, I'm not willing to believe any voters believe it.

The problems with American healthcare are varied and numerable, and the idea that Medicare or whatever government subsidized program for all will solve the problems is laughable. You've identified the main problem imo - that people who need a real procedure have little to no ability to compare prices (and little to no idea how much things cost) - but you think introducing a 3rd party in the US Government that will either obfuscate, mitigate, or delay the real cost will lead to individual people choosing fewer or cheaper procedures? I don't get that part.

If you're saying "Medicare for all" as a proxy for basic health services, yeah I'm on board, but as someone who has dealt with Patrick/RomneyCare & now ObamaCare that's not how it works. Because it's a massive, geographically spread out thing that is almost assuredly staffed by incompetent and uninterested government workers. I agree the free market doesn't always work, but thank god my father was in the air force, because we're in USAA through him, and they're universally known to have amazing customer service, which I've experienced. For car insurance, home insurance, soon dental insurance, and hopefully eventually health insurance... Meanwhile I deal with the Massachusetts DMV, the NC DMV, MassHealth, and other government agencies where the individual actors are pretty good sometimes, but the institution as a whole could not care less about me, because where else am I going to go?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by mckerney

That deficits weren't a problem early in Obama's presidency because they were needed to get out of a giant financial collapse but they should have been sandwiched between massive tax cuts that needlessly exploded deficits during periods of economic prosperity.

Should have or Should not have?

[Edward64]

I'm not sure I understand what is going on here. Ford's 4 witnesses not corroborating her story (but at least one publicly says she believes Ford)? I get it was a long time ago but wouldn't it have been better if Ford checked with the 4 witnesses first to see if she should even have offered them up?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/polit...ion/index.html

Keyser is the latest person alleged to be at the party to say she has no recollection of it.

White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said of those who allegedly attended the party, "One week ago, Dr. Christine Ford claimed she was assaulted at a house party attended by four others. Since then, all four of these individuals have provided statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee denying any knowledge of the incident or even having attended such a party."

The Washington Post reported late Saturday that it had talked to Keyser, who told the paper she believed Ford's allegation.

[Edward64]

The US-China trade war is yet to be settled and this is a Trump policy that I support (e.g. I do see China as our biggest economic threat). I supported TPP also and was concerned that when Trump scrapped it there wouldn't be a replacement ... well, glad to know the concern was unfounded and it appears the replacement is a trade war, a more "direct" approach.

Who knows who will "win" and what, if anything, China will ultimately concede. But it was reassuring to read the below from Cramer (had to look up what rapacious meant) ... obviously still fraught with challenges but at least Trump is doing something about it.

... and yes, it goes without saying, some Americans will suffer because of this trade war even if it results in a significant overall net benefit.

https://realmoney.thestreet.com/arti...814.1520130023

Drives me crazy. Just drives me crazy that so many believe that you can't put tariffs on things and get a good outcome. But when you have the strongest economy as measured by employment in 49 years, you should be willing to entertain the idea that tariffs against a rapacious trading country might actually be good for America. Do not kid yourself. That's what the stock market is really saying with these rallies.

No I am not oblivious to the inflationary nature of tariffs. But I also know that this is an Amazon (AMZN) economy. There's always someone out there who can give you a better price. If your competitor makes things in China you are going to crush them if you make them elsewhere. Why is that hard? Amazon can quickly mimic most consumer manufacturers and not do it in China but do it in a cheaper country, of which there are many.

But the Chinese? Who are they going to sell to? What are they going to do with all the widgets they make? Buy them? Dump them in Europe?

There are goods that China makes that are necessities but most are not. There are items that are going to go up in price for certain. Walmart (WMT) would not have written a letter to the White House urging against tariffs because they will raise prices for consumers and will hurt businesses. One hundred million people shop at Walmart every week so I am taking that one as gospel. But I think that we will have an initial problem for about two-to-three quarters and then manufacturing will shift to other, cheaper, countries. In the interim the tax cuts and the bountiful job market might help mitigate the acknowledged pain.

No matter, the fact is that we elected a president who ran on a platform that said it was time to tame China and you get what you vote for. And so far even tariff haters have to admit that the stock market does not think earnings will be hurt or it would be dramatically lower instead of hitting all time highs as it did again on Friday.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I get that Trump wants to eliminate illegal immigration and wants to reduce legal immigration, specifically those he would consider undesirables (e.g. those that are here legally as PR and using social programs).

Nice timing to our discussion, here are the details.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/imm...ts-who-n910791

The Trump administration announced a proposed rule Saturday that would make it harder for immigrants already in the U.S. legally, as well as those seeking to enter, to obtain visas or green cards if they have ever been dependent on certain public benefits, like Medicaid, food stamps or public housing.

The proposal, which can become a rule after a public comment period, rewrites a 1999 rule that limited green cards from immigrants who were dependent on cash benefits, but did not take into consideration healthcare or other non-monetary benefits.

Originally, the rule known as "public charge" began in the 1800s as a way for the U.S. to deny entry to immigrants who were likely to become a drain on the economy.

"This proposed rule will implement a law passed by Congress intended to promote immigrant self-sufficiency and protect finite resources by ensuring that they are not likely to become burdens on American taxpayers," said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

As NBC News previously reported, earlier versions of the proposal included more draconian measures, such as limiting green cards and citizenship for immigrants who had used Obamacare or certain tax credits.

"The [disqualifying] benefits generally represent the largest federal programs for low-income people by total expenditure that address basic living needs such as income, housing, food, and medical care," a spokeswoman for DHS said in a written briefing.

Proposed disqualifying benefits would also include the Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy and vouchers for Section 8 Housing.

Immigrants who receive more than $1,821 annually, 15 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, in benefits that can be monetized would also be disqualified from receiving green cards and visas.

When I went through the Student-H1B-PR-Citizen route, I had to declare that I had enough funds to be in the US (not sure what the rules were for the other types of visas) ... definitely at the Student-H1B stage, not sure about later ... so this doesn't really surprise me.

I guess two questions from me ...

1) For those adversely impacted by this, did they also have to declare some sort of self-sufficiency and then fell into hard times (or just lied about it)

2) What is the real # of people and $ impact of this? If its relatively chump change, does the savings benefit outweigh the person/societal costs?

[Marc Vaughan]

But I think that we will have an initial problem for about two-to-three quarters and then manufacturing will shift to other, cheaper, countries. In the interim the tax cuts and the bountiful job market might help mitigate the acknowledged pain.

So this basically accepts that a trade war is a lose lose for both China and the US, it will hurt the Chinese economy slightly by removing some of their trade.

The items produced there for the US may shift to other countries but it won't be the US, it'll be other cheap countries which don't presently have tariffs associated with them ....

[cuervo72]

How can Amazon mimic manufacturers? Amazon doesn't actually make anything.

If you are a company that relies on importing sprockets, how are you going to immediately find another sprocket supplier if nowhere else makes them? Is a sprocket factory going to pop up in the middle of Mozambique in the middle of the night? If it were that easy and favorable to be making them somewhere else, wouldn't someone already be doing it? And even IF a supply chain can materialize in two or three quarters, can all companies wait that long?

[PilotMan]

China is pouring billions into Africa right now. Infrastructure, manpower, and I have to think, that they believe they can use Africa as a massive manpower repository for when their own workers start to leave and join the middle class. It may not pay off. I've read that the value per dollar spent is horrible, because of the grift and lack of centralized infrastructure. However, if they stick with it for another 20 years, it may pay off in the long run.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

So this basically accepts that a trade war is a lose lose for both China and the US, it will hurt the Chinese economy slightly by removing some of their trade.

Cramer seems optimistic about the US positioning due to the strength of the US stock market & economy. I'm sure he knows it'll be a lose-lose but he thinks (and I hope) that China will lose more.

Best that I can hope for is the China stock market crashing (it already has some) and doing some crazy things there, creating unrest etc.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The items produced there for the US may shift to other countries but it won't be the US, it'll be other cheap countries which don't presently have tariffs associated with them ....

Yeah, I think that is one of the results of the master plan. So we may see initial higher prices but it'll normalize after the initial pain and long-term, the deficit with China will be lower and I assume higher with some of these cheaper countries.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

How can Amazon mimic manufacturers? Amazon doesn't actually make anything.

If you are a company that relies on importing sprockets, how are you going to immediately find another sprocket supplier if nowhere else makes them? Is a sprocket factory going to pop up in the middle of Mozambique in the middle of the night? If it were that easy and favorable to be making them somewhere else, wouldn't someone already be doing it? And even IF a supply chain can materialize in two or three quarters, can all companies wait that long?

I was thinking his wording about Amazon was off also. The gist is probably that if a widget was $5 and now it is $10 because of the tariffs that there will be another company/country out there that will make the widget for $5 in 3- quarters or so and Amazon can then sell it for $5 again.

I agree with you with the skepticism but I can hope he is right.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

China is pouring billions into Africa right now. Infrastructure, manpower, and I have to think, that they believe they can use Africa as a massive manpower repository for when their own workers start to leave and join the middle class. It may not pay off. I've read that the value per dollar spent is horrible, because of the grift and lack of centralized infrastructure. However, if they stick with it for another 20 years, it may pay off in the long run.

I did know China is investing a lot into Africa but thought it was more for its natural resources vs. making things. In 20 years, if we are buying more widgets from other countries I think it helps us and hurts China.

The question in my mind is can China sell its widgets to non-US countries (e.g. the EU) or would the non-US countries now buy their widgets from the non-China countries (that we are buying from) who are now making them.

I don't really know but its an interesting dynamic and it shakes it up some. The trajectory it was on was not good so maybe it'll change it some.

****

I read on a reddit /china board that the Chinese citizens do not really know what is going on with the economy, the debt, ghost cities, the trying to get to soft landing etc. because of lack of media transparency. With continued pressure, word will get out and cause more unrest or run on the markets?

Who knows. However, it seems this is some sort of grand plan vs shooting from the typical-Trump shooting from the hip.

The TPP was more like let's get the Asian countries together and collaboratively compete against China whereas the current policies seem more US will act and other countries will follow.

****

Trump notwithstanding, I really like what is happening now. But its only because it seems the US is in a stronger position in the trade war. If our market and economy crashes but China's doesn't, then obviously its a different story. A nice Machiavellian play so far.

.

[Edward64]

Is it me or does it seem as if Trump has tweeted less and those that he has tweeted are less caustic?

Or is it that we are just so overloaded already that he just hasn't raised the bar to get as much reaction as previously?

I'm thinking there is more discipline nowadays but who knows how long it'll last.

He seems to be very focused on China, Immigration and economy/stock market lately which are winning issues for his base. Latest survey I see:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/23/gop-...-wsj-poll.html

The survey, six weeks before Americans head to the polls, shows Democrats leading Republicans by 52 percent to 40 percent for control of Congress. If it holds, that 12 percentage point margin would suggest a "blue wave" large enough to switch control of not just the House but also the Senate.

"The results could not be clearer about making a change in direction from Trump's policies," explained Bill McInturff, the Republican pollster who helps conduct the NBC/WSJ survey. "Once again, Americans are hitting the brakes in a mid-term."

In each of the last three off-year elections — 2006, 2010 and 2014 — voters have flipped control of one or both houses of Congress away from the incumbent president's party. This year, the provocative behavior some voters accepted from Candidate Trump in 2016 has overshadowed everything else, including falling unemployment, surging growth and rising stock values.
:
What makes that conclusion all the more striking is that Trump's job approval rating, now 44 percent, has inched five points higher since January. But 52 percent disapprove, and loyalty to Trump among his core supporters — white men without college degrees, rural residents, those aged 50-64 — is not lifting GOP candidates, as voters focus on their November choices.

.

[JPhillips]

I don't think these calendars are going to help Kavanaugh the way he thinks. If he says there were parties outside of those listed, they are worthless, and who would believe that a seventeen year-old kept perfect records of his actions, especially a seventeen year-old known for heavy drinking?

Everything beyond, I didn't do it, has, IMO been counterproductive for Kavanaugh.

[PilotMan]

Honestly, he could probably, reasonably say, "I don't remember doing it. If I did, I am honestly, and sincerely sorry for the pain and suffering that you have endured and I would never wish that sort of outcome on anyone, let alone knowingly inflict it on another human being. I have tried to live my with integrity, kindness and empathy and I have raised my kids the same way. If by some account, these are my actions, I am truly sorry, and know that I would have done everything in my power to make it right somehow. My life has been about leading by example and every step of the way my decisions have been based on that goal. Know now, that I am not this person, I have never been this person, and I would stand here and criticize anyone who said that this kind of behavior was ok. I promise that I will always serve the people of the United States of America with integrity, wisdom and empathy and will be the kind of example that future generations will be proud of. Thank you very much." And he would endure some harsh criticism, but I think it would give the R's enough standing to continue to confirm him. It will however, open the door for those who left under even weaker accusations, like Franken, to run again, and never let the R's forget that it was in this moment that they chose a seat on the Surpreme Court over the values they hold so dear.

[JPhillips]

Ronan Farrow just released a story with a new accusation against Kavanaugh from his Yale days. At this point I doubt we get to the Thursday hearing.

[Thomkal]

New Yorker story on Kavanaugh. Avernati says he's representing a third woman now.


https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...social_twitter


Edit: have to say after reading it, this story has more doubt and holes in it than the first woman. Color me skeptical.

[Edward64]

It gets much more interesting if there is a pattern.

[JPhillips]

from our NBC/WSJ poll released today on preference for Congress:

white men +16 Republicans
white women +12 Democrats
blacks +68 Democrats
Latinos +43 Democrats

and among white men, huge gap by education:

college graduate +9 Dem
not college graduate +31 GOP

— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) September 24, 2018

It's like homeopathic politics.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

New Yorker story on Kavanaugh. Avernati says he's representing a third woman now.


https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...social_twitter


Edit: have to say after reading it, this story has more doubt and holes in it than the first woman. Color me skeptical.

There is corroboration in that story from at least two other sources that the thing happened, though. It'd probably be treated as hearsay in court because they aren't direct eyewitnesses, but you've got two other people saying "I heard at the time that that had happened, yeah," and one of them the New Yorker is saying "independently recalled" details of the incident. To me, that sounds like "they came up with the same details without being prompted."

So, I mean...it's been 35 years, she was drunk, and there aren't going to be hard forensic details to back up either Dr. Ford's or Ms. Martinez's claims.

But in both cases, external corroboration exists. Dr. Ford's claims have notes from a therapist from YEARS ago where these allegations were first aired, and Ms. Martinez has people - including Kavanaugh's roommate at Yale - either saying "Yeah, I remember hearing that that thing happened to a girl" and corroborating certain specific details, or else saying "Yeah that would have been a total Brett thing to do at that time."

Like, did the second account happen to Deborah Martinez, or is she borrowing a story she heard 35 years ago because 'woo 15 minutes of fame'? It's a fair question to ask when she herself is going "well I don't remember all the details" and one of the corroborators is like "I heard that happened, but I can't swear it happened to HER."

But the existence of a second accusation - and a third, if Avenatti is legit and not just trying to insert himself into the spotlight again - start to create a pattern, and the bigger that pattern gets, the harder it is to say "well he was a turd then but he's been a standup dude since."

[cartman]

A potential constitutional crisis first thing Monday morning wasn't I was expecting. Rosenstein is saying he won't resign, they will have to fire him.

[Shkspr]

It's kind of disturbing to think that the President would fall for fake news from the failing New York Times as justification for firing Rosenstein.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

It's kind of disturbing to think that the President would fall for fake news from the failing New York Times as justification for firing Rosenstein.

Yeah, you expect that to happen with Fox News.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by cartman

A potential constitutional crisis first thing Monday morning wasn't I was expecting. Rosenstein is saying he won't resign, they will have to fire him.

https://act.moveon.org/event/mueller...events/search/

Mueller Firing Rapid Response - The Plan | MoveOn.org


Reminders.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Radii

https://act.moveon.org/event/mueller...events/search/

Mueller Firing Rapid Response - The Plan | MoveOn.org

Reminders.

I wonder if it will muddy/mute the response a bit that a Rosenstein firing triggers it too, especially if it ends up being unclear if he was fired or resigned.

[jct32]

Originally Posted by Radii

https://act.moveon.org/event/mueller...events/search/

Mueller Firing Rapid Response - The Plan | MoveOn.org


Reminders.

I hope we don't get to this point. However, from a social perspective, I will be interested to see how this goes. Whether it turns out to be close to the 400,000 strong they claim or if it is lackluster.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by jct32

I hope we don't get to this point. However, from a social perspective, I will be interested to see how this goes. Whether it turns out to be close to the 400,000 strong they claim or if it is lackluster.

I assume the 400k number is based on the number of people who have "RSVP'd" to a specific location on the site.

EDIT: Which, I assume means far fewer will show up, but hopefully that's offset by people who hear about it in a location in some other way or once a much louder call to action occurs if something worthy does happen.

[jct32]

Originally Posted by Radii

I assume the 400k number is based on the number of people who have "RSVP'd" to a specific location on the site.

EDIT: Which, I assume means far fewer will show up, but hopefully that's offset by people who hear about it in a location in some other way or once a much louder call to action occurs if something worthy does happen.

Yeah, I assumed it to be those who signed up on the website for notifications. Regardless, I think it will be interesting to see the response if it happens.

I agree that the publicity can grow the numbers besides those who have signed up.

[JPhillips]

If Mueller is fired I expect 400k will be low. People in big cities will just start streaming out to be a part of things. 100k or more in NYC alone wouldn't surprise me.

[molson]

What are the odds Trump just takes this to next level, emulates his hero Putin, and Rosenstein just disapears? And trump considers it a resignation and fills the vacancy? 1% chance? I say it's somewhere above zero.

[jct32]

0%

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by molson

What are the odds Trump just takes this to next level, emulates his hero Putin, and Rosenstein just disapears? And trump considers it a resignation and fills the vacancy? 1% chance? I say it's somewhere above zero.

100% that Putin has told Trump about the existence of Novichok.

[JPhillips]

The thing we've learned, though, is that Trump is a coward. Someone else would have to order and execute anything Trump is too scared to do himself.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The thing we've learned, though, is that Trump is a coward. Someone else would have to order and execute anything Trump is too scared to do himself.

That's why I don't think Rosenstein will be fired Thursday if he is meeting with Trump. Trump would probably have someone else do it rather than firing Rosenstein himself.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The thing we've learned, though, is that Trump is a coward. Someone else would have to order and execute anything Trump is too scared to do himself.

I wonder if the meeting with Kelly might be that Kelly can't fire a Senate appointed cabinet member, but can badger them into resigning meaning Trump or Sessions has to say "You're fired" if Rosenstein won't quit.

[JPhillips]

Rosenstein could pull a Costanza and just keep showing up for work and Trump would never have the courage to make him leave.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by mckerney

That's why I don't think Rosenstein will be fired Thursday if he is meeting with Trump. Trump would probably have someone else do it rather than firing Rosenstein himself.

If Trump is brave enough to do it - then it'll happen Thursday, its no coincidence that happens to be the day Kavanaughs accused does the open hearing .... the media can't manage to cover two huge outcries at once so doing it then will distract from one of them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. China is chief culprit in my mind. If you don't think China is screwing with us with IP/tech (and other) then let's agree to disagree here. There's economic warfare going, we need to find a way to "win" it. It would be great if the Chinese economy crashed like the Japanese lost 2 decades.

This was the whole point of TPP which Trump did not want.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This was the whole point of TPP which Trump did not want.

He substituted TPP for his brand of economic warfare. I posted these in prior posts.

The US-China trade war is yet to be settled and this is a Trump policy that I support (e.g. I do see China as our biggest economic threat). I supported TPP also and was concerned that when Trump scrapped it there wouldn't be a replacement ... well, glad to know the concern was unfounded and it appears the replacement is a trade war, a more "direct" approach.

Who knows who will "win" and what, if anything, China will ultimately concede. But it was reassuring to read the below from Cramer (had to look up what rapacious meant) ... obviously still fraught with challenges but at least Trump is doing something about it.

... and yes, it goes without saying, some Americans will suffer because of this trade war even if it results in a significant overall net benefit.

The TPP was more like let's get the Asian countries together and collaboratively compete against China whereas the current policies seem more US will act and other countries will follow.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Trump notwithstanding, I really like what is happening now. But its only because it seems the US is in a stronger position in the trade war. If our market and economy crashes but China's doesn't, then obviously its a different story. A nice Machiavellian play so far.

.

I disagree that we're in the stronger position. Trump can't let this go into 2020 or the general election is going to be worse for republicans than the midterms appear to be. Because of that, China could easily just ride the Trump administration out of office and find themselves in a much better bargaining position with a newly elected President that would be looking to end this trade war as soon as possible. They're in far better position to take a year and half of losses and move on.

If/When Walmart starts to raise prices everyone else is going to be comfortable following. The average US citizen isn't going to give a shit about protecting IP and the tech sector if it puts a dent in their grocery bill.

This is a stupid trade war with no winners. Our strategy seems to be to simply make sure we're not the biggest loser.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Rosenstein could pull a Costanza and just keep showing up for work and Trump would never have the courage to make him leave.

He'll just keep telling people he's working on the Ruskie file.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I disagree that we're in the stronger position. Trump can't let this go into 2020 or the general election is going to be worse for republicans than the midterms appear to be. Because of that, China could easily just ride the Trump administration out of office and find themselves in a much better bargaining position with a newly elected President that would be looking to end this trade war as soon as possible. They're in far better position to take a year and half of losses and move on.

If/When Walmart starts to raise prices everyone else is going to be comfortable following. The average US citizen isn't going to give a shit about protecting IP and the tech sector if it puts a dent in their grocery bill.

I will admit it could be confirmation bias but I've read numerous similar type of analysis to the below (including SEA news version). Others added China's weak stock market as evidence as the "smart" money is betting on the US.

With that said, who knows. Many things could happen and you may very well be right. It may be a game of chicken to see who blinks first/who can last longest based on their differing internal pressures.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-winni...e-deal-1104980

China was supposed to have the political strength and economic heft to win a trade war with the U.S. But President Donald Trump’s challenge to this conventional wisdom reveals a surprising vulnerability in China’s economics and politics.

China’s economic ascent has depended on a willingness among world leaders to look past—and, when necessary, explain away—its unsavory aspects, primarily intellectual property theft, state subsidies of business and barriers to foreign competitors. Trump has shown no such willingness. He has made tariffs to combat Chinese trade abuses a centerpiece of his political pitch to middle-class voters, betting that China’s political leaders and economy are more vulnerable to pressure than the experts predicted. And the evidence is mounting that he was right.

China’s key advantage in a trade war was never going to be economic, because China doesn’t import nearly enough from the U.S. to go toe-to-toe in a tariff fight. But that wasn’t supposed to matter. Even if China couldn’t win a tariff battle, President Xi Jinping would have the political upper hand because he doesn’t have to answer to voters. Trump and his party, by contrast, would face the difficult task of explaining to voters why they started an economically painful trade war.

In other words, democracy was supposed to be America’s biggest weakness in a trade war. But that story hasn’t played out.

With China’s economy now evidencing strain under U.S. tariffs, and the U.S. economy booming, it’s Xi who finds himself in a surprisingly weak position. It turns out that the kind of criticism that gets expressed vociferously in a democracy isn’t absent in a communist regime—it just shows up differently. As The New York Times has reported, voices of dissent have emerged in surprising places—from legal scholars at China’s leading universities to researchers at China’s central bank. And where voices are stifled, money talks. China’s weakening currency—down significantly since trade tensions escalated in April—could signal the beginning of more capital fleeing China.

That capital will almost certainly find its way to the U.S., where tax cuts, rising interest rates, stronger economic growth and regulatory relief have created an attractive safe haven for investors. And while dissatisfaction in China over Xi’s economic strategy is evading censors and bubbling over into public discourse, U.S. headlines are filled with signs of optimism about the economy. The stock market has resumed its march back toward record territory, and small-business confidence hovers near all-time highs.

Just a note, not really sure I want Chinese money coming over here e.g. buying property like in Canada. But that's a different conversation.

.

[miked]

You are quite the fool if you do not think Chinese money is coming over here. It is so expensive to buy in Beijing, many of these folks buy in the states. Last time I was in California, some folks told me that some places are making rules/laws that say you can't buy a house unless you live in it XXX days of the year, to prevent Chinese buyers from coming to the states and driving up all the prices.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

He'll just keep telling people he's working on the Ruskie file.

Oh I get it...

/me is slow

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miked

You are quite the fool if you do not think Chinese money is coming over here. It is so expensive to buy in Beijing, many of these folks buy in the states. Last time I was in California, some folks told me that some places are making rules/laws that say you can't buy a house unless you live in it XXX days of the year, to prevent Chinese buyers from coming to the states and driving up all the prices.

Let me restate.

I know Chinese money has already come into NA markets buying up houses and increasing prices. Canada (e.g. Vancouver) is probably worse off than the US.

I would hope we can do something to prevent/slow down the purchasing of homes where the Chinese buyer won't live in it. In Canada, there is an "un-occupancy" tax, maybe something similar here.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Penske.

I think you missed his Russia joke.