I'll agree with that part. I'll also say the job market isn't nearly as good as advertised. I've got an M.Ed. and should have my PhD finished within 18 months, and I've been unemployed for 7 months and can barely get an interview a month. When I try to get something just so I can have an income, employers will turn me away because I'm overeducated and they don't think I'll be around for long. I should have no trouble getting a job in instructional design/technology, but it's still too small of a market despite the ongoing and increasing need for it.

Toss in those whose jobs left and haven't been retrained for a more modern job (or refuse to learn new skills), and there's another subset that isn't going to go away anytime soon. Until those elements are eliminated, no we aren't near full employment.

Sadly, you are probably right. Had Streep stepped up and said what you talkeda about, certain factions of Hollywood would have wiped her out and some of the people criticizing her would be holding parades for her.

And I would still be pissed. Talking down to other people is not the way to make your points.

This is the same women who stood up and applauded Roman Polanski. Yup, womens rights are importan Meryl. Wouldn't want to be neanderthals who go around raping 13 year olds. Oh, that's ok then?

Ugh, the double standard and the elitism is vomit inducing.

The labor force participation rate going down is a good thing, not a bad thing.

You realize that's a straight up propaganda piece with exactly one supporting point of data to back up the article......



....and the support is weak. One guy at Goldman, wrote back in June of last year, that industries that have the highest levels of involuntary part-time workers were impacted at a greater amount because of the ACA.

So because of that, and I'm not saying that it hasn't had an impact, but to say that it's the reason for all the full time job losses, while it discredits the job gains that have been made through speculation, then it goes on to simply complain about how despite things being good, they aren't good enough.

And that was over 6 months ago, and the economy is still plugging away and trending in the right direction.

Next time perhaps a more well written piece might be a better read.

http://www.economist.com/news/united...bered-exchange

Depends upon whose funding the continued existence of those not in the labor force.

Not when only half of it is explained by retirees.

Obamacare is pure garbage. That's the only supporting point that we need.

OK, Dutch, I'll play.

Do you really think all of the ACA is garbage? I'm curious why you think so. Is this moe philosophical on your part or practice driven concerns?

Just putting it out there as something I can go back and claim...

I think he gets impeached and Pence becomes Pres. at some point in the first term.

I'm sure you can get decent odds on this especially if he doesn't curb his Twitter meltdowns. Speaking of which, he loves to spout off about "Making America Great Again" and being the greatest jobs creator god ever put on this earth. Yet here he is this morning pumping up L.L. Bean because a member of their family said nice things about him when he was being "picked on". L.L Bean manufacturers their boots and some items in Maine and L.L. Bean clothing and jackets are made in Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, El Salvador, Vietnam, Sri Lanka and China. So where is the Twitter backlash and threats of an import tax?

If he wants to be taken seriously by those who did not vote for him, he needs to start being consistent by creating a policy versus cherry picking companies and situations which make him feel warm and fuzzy inside.

I'd fashion the bet this way: Mike Pence becomes President of the United States before November 3, 2020.

[phrasing it this way because I could see a face-saving resignation happening before formal impeachment]

What odds would that have right now? 10% feels about right to me.

There is also the consideration of people spending longer these days in college and grad school, which also counts against labor force participation. But that's maybe half a percentage point. So with that and retirement you end up with a 1% decline in the LBPR over the last 8 years. The question that economists are currently discussing is whether that's a permanent decline or temporary one.

Don't forget the massive drive towards automation and efficiency that this country has lead the way in for three generations and counting.

Yeah, that's part of the conversation as to whether the decline in LBPR may be a permanent thing. Then again, a 1% decline in LBPR is not necessarily all that important in being proactive in dealing with workers that lose their job to automation. Even in the Carrier deal, Carrier said it would take that tax savings and put it into automation research - so down the line those jobs that may have been saved are just kicking the can.

That's the thing that has moved me to favoring a UBI sooner than later. Those jobs aren't coming back and anything that isn't purely human skill based is in danger of disappearing in the not too distant future.

If they had focused any effort in that area, instead of literally ignoring an entire region, they probably would have won. Hillary lost Wisconsin because she didn't set foot in the state after April, making it really easy for Trump to tell people there that she didn't care about their plight. Just doing an adequate job of campaigning likely wins her the election.

Go to those states, tell them how and when you intend to fix things, and keep hammering home that your opposition has nothing but empty platitudes about turning back time. Just about anything would have been better than doing nothing and arrogantly assuming the win.

All I know is traffic still sucks in Arizona, so nobody left here to go to those two places :)

I'd go 15-20. Age of Trump so he could die, and he pisses off people and could be assassinated as well factored in there.

If Obama wasnt assassinated, Trump wont be.

Naah, Trump is by far the most likely President to get murdered in the next twenty years. He's going to blow off Secret Service concerns because he has his own "highly picked" private security force. Communication between federal and private security will suck, one or more of his private security guys will get bought off, and Trump's got a decent chance of getting himself killed.

I'd put 10% as my absolute highest chance that Pence is president by Nov 3, 2020. I think 5% is probably more like it? Maybe even a little less.

As much as I detest him, that would not be a solution I'd ever want to see. No matter who is in charge.

If it happened and the "wrong" colored person did it, shit would truly hit the fan.

Hmmmm...I'd need to see his birth certificate first:devil:

Trump has to have at least a reasonable chance of just dying within 4 years. 2/3 of 70 year old men live at least another 10 years. Even if the breakdown is something like (ages 70to80) 1/2/2/3/3/4/4/7/7 that gives him roughly an 8 percent chance of dying or so. Even if you account for the president getting the best health care, you still gotta price 2% or so in for just being old and dying.

We've got a no-nonsense governor that was just elected that at least governs similarly to what Trump would like to do. His first executive order? Banning gifts by lobbyists to anyone in the executive branch. Would love to see Trump start doing similar things when he hits the office. That would definitely signal a change, especially if it happens at that level.

Gov. Greitens outlaws lobbyist gifts to executive branch - KMIZ

dola

Trump plans will double GDP growth by 2018 according to Deutsche Bank forecast.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/09/donal...bank-says.html

Amazing what a massive, debt funded stimulus could do!

Man, never heard of rules like that before.

USOGE | Gifts from Outside Sources

The number of holes in those rules you cite are laughable. It should be no gifts at all.

The plan would reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects. The plan would improve incentives to work, save, and invest. However, unless it is accompanied by very large spending cuts, it could increase the national debt by nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product by 2036, offsetting some or all of the incentive effects of the tax cuts.

Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan | Tax Policy Center

Not exactly a gold medal solution for the Republican party that spent the last 8 years trying to not give a penny of extra spending without a cut to go with it. I'm not sure more spending with less income was the kind of plan they were really going for.

Definitely will need to see some major spending cuts, but he's clearly made the case that he's willing to trim the fat quite a bit. I certainly agree that we have to see those changes before we can believe them.

Trump is not a republican. He just chose that party to run in. I dont think he cares what either party thinks. He will do what he wants. Good or bad. He is going to do whatever he feels like doing.
Obama set the stage with all his executive orders. Think what Trump will do if Congress denies him anything or everything.

So, here are the exceptions to the Missouri rule:


I mean really, the only difference is the $20 de minimis exception in the federal rules.

Im kind of worried about Greitens. I really liked Nixon. He was right down the middle. And he did some good things for the state.
I voted for Koster, I thought he would be in line with Nixon.

And, you know, Koster was a republican then switched and Greitens was a dem until he found out they didnt want him running against Koster in a primary.

Im not sure what Greitens will do. He is a lot like Trump. In that I dont think anyone really knows what he is going to do.

The federal budget in 2015 was 3.8 trillion dollars. The ACA repeal, the income tax cuts and the infrastructure stimulus will be at least 1.5 trillion in spending/reduced revenue(and probably much more). Without massive cuts to Medicare/SS/military there isn't enough to cut in the rest of the budget.

We're back to the Bush years, and the deficit doesn't matter anymore.

It doesnt matter anymore under any President, I dont think. When you see that many zeroes, it is all fantasy dollars.

I'm sure you did like Nixon. He helped out the eastern end of the state quite a bit. He's despised on this half of the state for all the money he sent into St. Louis. This end of the state was thrilled to see Greitens take a stand and tell St. Louis no to state funds for their new soccer stadium. Several years ago, KC funded their stadium renovations locally rather than ask for state funds and we're excited that Greitens is pushing the same thing for St. Louis. Handouts and urban decay are killing that city. They need to pull their head out and realize that they need to improve their city from within.

You do realize that Obama has used the least executive orders per term since Grover Cleveland, right?

Thats interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.

But they dont include presidential memorandums.

Sorry my scope wasnt big enough.

Obama has taken more high-level executive action than any president since Harry S. Truman.

So I stand corrected. And my statement above is amended.

Presidential Memorandums aren't required to be published in Federal Register unless the President decides to do so (unlike Executive Orders). Therefore, there is no real way to count them in their entirety. It depends on how much the President wants to publish.

Well, if the number of presidential memorandums were publicly available we would know if that is true or not. But, unfortunately it is isn't so I think it is hard to make the argument that Obama is out of line with taking presidential actions compared to his predecessors.

Cavuto has a decent point here. While Obama used a more mocking tone as opposed to a direct tone like Trump, the similarities are still there.

Cavuto: How Does It Feel to Be Dismissed, CNN? - Fox Nation

I don't think that's the right comparison, actually. Trump does a lot of tweeting and complaining about CNN and the NYT own twitter and wherever else, which is comparable to Obama complaining about Fox News's reporting and coverage of him. They take a different approach in doing that but it's a fair comparison.

Shouting someone down in a press conference is a bit different I think.

I think it's a bad comparison as well.

IMO Fox News was spreading information that it knew to be probably not true. CNN has at least some credible sources.

LOL

And he leaves out the fact that at least Tapper and Cooper did speak out against the Obama admin while defending Fox News.

:D :D :D

Wait, you're serious??????

Of course he is. CNN is the mouth of the liberals. Why wouldnt he believe everything they report?

He said he wants to massively expand the militry and has a infrastructure plan that dwarfs anything that has ever been proposed. Also has said no cuts to Medicare and SS.

Where are you cutting fat that could possible make up for the revenue loss and massibe increase in spending?

On a side note that has me fairly amused tonight ...

I believe I've read where Kid Rock is performing at the inauguration.
What could possibly be more appropriate for his performance than "Ain't Never Met ..."?

Hell, that could replace Hail To The Chief sooooo easily.

Positions seem to mirror those of the Kremlin. Hmmmmmmm.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a..._medium=social

How is the Mattis/Trump relationship going to work? Mattis just said NATO was the most important alliance in our history and now Trump says it's obsolete.

You can say that for any number of items.

Train wreck coming...

I just think Mattis is the most likely to say fuck this shit.

I didn't see the quote but the two notions aren't mutually exclusive.

NATO has been historically significant.
It could be approaching obsolescence in its current form.

You should read Mattis' testimony. He was absolutely saying NATO is important now. At one point he said that if NATO didn't exist we would need to create it. He also said that Putin is trying to break NATO.

That isn't surprising as he's previously been high in the NATO command.

Wouldn't it be funny if Trump of all people got us universal health care?

Trump vows ‘insurance for everybody’ in Obamacare replacement plan - The Washington Post

I will say I like the part about negotiating with drug companies. That aspect of Medicare and Medicaid is ludicrous and costs taxpayers a lot of money.

Why is that funny?

I think this guy will get more done than any of you guys think he will.

Remember, this guy isnt a D or an R. He has things he wants to do. And the wherewithall to do them.

I think it'd be amazing if he managed to put in place Universal Health Care - but it would be funny (in an ironic manner) because it was lambasted so enthusiastically by the Republicans and 99% of people who voted for him ... remember the 'death panels' when Obamacare was in its infancy and meant to be more akin to a Universal system? ..

Its more dark humor because I feel that the Republicans obstructed a lot of stuff they knew were good ideas (such as Universal Health Care) because it wasn't them doing it rather than because it was bad for the country, in a similar manner look at their stance on spending on infrastructure and how it was under Obama (and potentially Hillary when she was running) ... but now Trump is talking about it, its a fantastic idea - balancing the budget/reducing debt ... not so important suddenly ;)

Everybody covered. Lower deductibles. Cheaper. Not single payer.


Sounds easy. Let's do it!

And the dems intentionally lied to the American people about what Obama care was.

The architect of Obamacare at a conference: "And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not."

The Republicans treated Obama like garbage. The democrats treated Bush like pure garbage. And the American public will let their own side slide with any problems with the truth because "we are only doing this because of the other side"

That got us where we are. I have no idea how the hell we get out.

I'd agree with that - I think it'd be fantastic to see politicians 'work' with their opposite numbers for the good of the country, but I'm not sure how to get there from here.

Perhaps Trump can do it - its possible, but his authoritarian style is concerning because while it probably gives him the ability to force things through and persuade people to work together I'm not presently certain he'll be focusing them on things which I perceive as good rather than stripping health services from women (ie. Planned Parenthood does a lot more than just assist with abortions) and suchlike.

I hope I'm wrong and I'm waiting on his healthcare plans details with interest - I'm expecting it to be empty rhetoric, but I'd be happy to be wrong on this ... what he's describing sounds very much like a single payer system ...

Name one thing where Trump's team has released anything close to a detailed plan.

There is no health plan. Trump will throw out a few things(probably contradictory), argue with Congress for show, sign whatever they pass, and then claim credit for the greatest healthcare plan ever. That plan will look a lot like the GOP plan and very little like a single payer plan.

And as long as Congress doesn't push back on his conflicts or his ties to Russia, that's how things will go on every issue.

I'm fully expecting that to be the case - but at the moment its purely speculation and I'm trying not to pre-judge, I'd love to be wrong.

If I'm not then I'm hopeful that over time continued things like this will ensure that better decisions are made at the next election by the populace.

I keep seeing people say this sort of thing, I continue to scratch my head.

When there's such considerable disagreement (to put it mildly) about what constitutes 'the good of the country", you're essentially asking for one to either abandon their beliefs or work against their own beliefs.

How does either make sense, as an action or even as an expectation.

Because once you realize you can't/won't get everything you want, you can work to find common ground? There is a middle ground between "round up millions of illegal immigrants" and "give everyone amnesty" Will getting there be easy? Hell no. Some of those discussions get messy. But we damned well don't get anywhere if the left screams racism and the right screams COMMIE at each other for 3 hours.

It isn't about working against your own beliefs. That is absurd.

Yes, we can agree, working against your own beliefs IS absurd.

And if you believe (just to pick an example) that rounding up every single invader here illegally IS the proper course, then settling for anything less IS working against your own beliefs.

That "middle ground" you mentioned is simply capitulation.

Now it's already being walked back. The Trump team is now saying that he meant the insurance market would be available to everyone. So if you can afford insurance, you're set, if not, oh well.

Remarkably, that's the Ryan plan, too.

Because universal health care has been something Republicans have been against for decades. It would be funny if he was able to pass it as a Republican with a Republican legislature.

Nonetheless he backtracked today so it appears he got put in his place by the party or lobbyists.

So rather than work toward finding a middle ground and a plan to move forward they all stay as well as all of the illegals who come here until we do have a plan both sides have signed off on.

Sounds like a wonderful plan. That's been the plan for the last 12 years or so. How is that working out? Hell, we may as well just grant them all amnesty, because the sanctuary cities are doing that anyway and will continue until the the dems and reps actually agree on solution where they both lose a little and win a little. The left win big on this battle. The status quo gives them exactly what they want.

By no means am I only throwing sarcasm in your direction. There is a very large group of people who say that wanting immigration control is pure racism and compare anyone who believes in it to Adolf Hitler. And the "right" wins on a lot of stuff because the left won't compromise.

Umm ... we need the Ds to sign off ... why?

As for sanctuary cities, they should be cut off from all federal funds of any kind immediately. And states cut off that don't cut them off as well.

Starve them.

We are actually on the same side on that. I think it's disgraceful. But how are you going to starve them when you need to pass laws to do it? Without the two sides coming to the table, this doesn't stop. Congress, the house and the president are all temporary. Eventually, the dems will get all of them back. Then the reps will, then it'll be split.

There needs to be a long term solution. And there won't be until both sides realize they aren't going to get everything they want.

Because if republicans just push through a bill where only they win it will just be overturned next time the democrats run it, which will happen again as much as you probably don't want to believe it. Politics are cyclical and if the country gets screwed up again like it did under Bush, which is a pretty decent chance imho then the populous will vote the other way.

The conversation around Rep. Price is quickly changing from, will he be confirmed, to, will he stay out of jail.

That would seem to make it even more critical to do as much, as thoroughly, as possible.

Trump Inauguration: D.C. braced for 900,000 Protesters

I wonder how many of them voted

So the nominee for Sec. of Education says that a reason guns might be needed at a school would be to protect the students from grizzly bears.

Not sure if this is pay walled or not, but this is the dilemma I was talking about above.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-vs...73054?mod=e2tw

A deer crashed through a window a few years ago in a classroom where I teach. I often think, what if that had been a grizzly bear?

Writing my inaugural address at the Winter White House, Mar-a-Lago, three weeks ago. Looking forward to Friday. #Inauguration pic.twitter.com/S701FdTCQu

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 18, 2017

Is there any doubt that there's nothing on that paper?

I think he probably drew a pair of tits.

hahaha. I cant wait! Its going to be fantastic, tremendous pair of tits. Best tits ever.

Just look at that guy! So serious! Donald down to business! Exciting! He will definitely build a wall, give healthcare to everyone, jail Clinton, make minorities and women absolutely love him, keep all jobs in America, revamp the tax code, shutdown SNL and Vanity Fair, replace NATO with something so much better, tell Putin to kiss his ass, move Isreal's cities, personally rebuild the midwest, not grab anymore pussies, and make the Chiefs win the next 4 Super Bowls! Going to be a great prez, boys!

Over/under on "great", "tremendous", and the word "many". Vegas has to have a prop bet for this right?

Hoping he comes up with some real gems when he randomly jumps off into tangents mid-sentence, like just about the entire The Times interview, but one of my personal faves (re: Brexit and the future of the EU):

Or what about Russian paratroopers???

(Sorry, North Koreans.)

Is that a sharpie?

And it turns out the desk is the receptionist's desk for Mar-a-Lago.

Everything's a con.

I thought it was normal to hold up the pad of paper with your left hand while you write. :rolleyes:

To be fair,

His desk in his office there is surrounded by actual naked women dipped in bronze, so I mean he had to go with something a little less ostentatious.

Also, my wife told me that she was asked by one of her patients if they were closing the office (physical therapy) on Friday. She asked why and he said, "for the inaguration, its historical." She informed him that they would be open and that it would probably just be on the TV.

I told her she should be glad I wasn't there, because I would have responded, "you're right, it has been a long time since an old white guy was president. My 7 year old was shocked to learn a white guy could be president."

I'll go on the record here. Hopefully, we'll have a great four/eight-year run and y'all can come back and point at this and laugh at me for being so stupid.

But I don't think that we'll have a great four/eight-year run. I think that the GOP with which I grew up is gone. I think that the party is so driven by identity politics and by being against liberalism that it lacks the capacity to govern well.

I think that the GOP works on paper the same way communism works on paper. And they both fail in reality. The GOP presidential debates involved discussions of penis size. That's not an aberration. That's the natural and obvious result of a party that cares more about sound-bite campaigning than governing. The GOP Congress is rubberstamping an executive branch filled with conflicts-of-interest, nepotism, and connections to hostile foreign governments. Again, this isn't a bug. It's a feature of a party that, as Jon correctly puts it, has decided that absolutely nothing matters other than beating politicians with D next to their name.

And I think that side-show politics, conflicts-of-interest, and subservience to foreign strongmen are a poor way to govern a country. I think that the government is complex; that society is complex; and that the issues we face are difficult and subtle. And I think that the GOP model of governance is fundamentally broken. I think that they will do poorly running the country.

Accordingly, I predict that private sector job growth, GDP growth, and the S&P 500 will all do worse over the next four years than they did (per year) over the last eight. (I also think that we'll regress on social issues, but that's harder to measure with metrics).

I hope to be wrong. I hope we are on the dawn of an unprecedented boom-time. I put this out here now in part so that if I am wrong, I can't go back and pretend that I knew it would all be OK. So I can challenge myself and change my beliefs. And so you can make fun of me for it.

Let the great experiment begin.

We are at the dawn of the actual Worst. President. Ever.

I just see no way this can go ok.
It will either be YUGE or a Colossal flop. Thats probably hyperbole, but thats how I feel.


That aid my wife and 13 year old daughter left this AM for a school field trip to attend the inauguration. Yes we were Trump supporters (or really ABH) butt his trip was booked and paid for in September. They were going to be there either way. I'd be lieing if I told you I didnt have a twinge of trepidation telling them goodbye this morning hoping nothing stupid happens. I certainly didn't express that, as they are both carefree as a bird and I didnt want to ruin their trip.

I'm hopeful that it's only as bad as Warren G Harding and no more.

Trump team prepares dramatic cuts | TheHill

Proposed budget cuts. Hatchet job to the environment and the arts. I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything else, but it's still depressing. Sounds like the moderate elephants will fight back, however, and any donkey who votes for this is a jackass in the most negative connotation possible.

Private, public broadcasting. Of course!

And remember that even with these cuts the GOP voted for a resolution authorizing over nine trillion added to the deficit during the next decade.

I keep seeing Democrats hedging about various appointments, proposed laws, anything else with, "Well, there could be 1 or 2 Republicans who could go against Tillerson, DeVoss, Price... they seem concerned..." In what world do these people live? When have these people shown a spine to actually do what they might think as right, as opposed to what is going to keep them in office? I saw where people think Rubio might go against Tillerson because he really grilled him on Russia. There is less than a zero percent chance Rubio would do this. He won re-election by 7%. It would be political suicide to go against Trump at any point in the next 4-8 years.

Remember when Trump said he could murder someone in the street and still have support? He's completely right. He knows the media somehow has less of an attention span than he does. He can get away with anything because the media is too lazy/scared to actually put forth the effort to do anything about it.

Maybe you're overlooking the obvious: he can do it because a whole lot of his supporters are likely to be on board with removing his target from the list of oxygen consumers.

It isn't that we don't know EM, it's that he's probably doing what we'd do ourselves given the same opportunity.