I think that's basically a talking point attributable to the semi-random fact pattern of memorable history.

-Clinton happened to be in office when a tech bubble generated so much capital gains income that the treasury temporary swelled to actually cover its obligations. Clinton was indeed a fairly moderate Dem, but let's not pretend that the reason the federal deficit shrank was because of "welfare reform" or the like, it was the plastic economy of the moment.

-Bush 43 ended up presiding at a time when the hue and cry for expanded Medicare (especially for prescription drugs) reached a breaking point, and the GOP knew it has a weakness with older voters, so they knuckled under. It wasn't a deep philosophical commitment, it was political laziness and unwillingness to stand up to a strong lobby. They caved, the feds spend a ton more on Medicare now, and that's basically your story of expanding deficits during that era - coupled, admittedly, with the mantra that "deficits don't matter," which to any incumbent is basically scripture.

-Obama got to preside over a massive expansion, independent of his policies, and that's good for revenue. Like it or not, the health care package that they got passed under his watch had a variety of unpopular pay-fors designed to avoid blowing up the deficit... now we'll watch them go by the wayside, for sure, starting with the "Cadillac tax." He inherited TARP and the fallout from the 2008-09 fall-apart, but since a recovery was pretty obviously imminent after that dust settled, he gets credit (in this respect) for just not messing it all up.

-Trump's massive tax cut, and the unbelievable fiction surrounding it, was absurdly irresponsible and contributed to a massive underfunding now and for the next political generation. If all you care about is deficits, then this is the one place you draw the line... it was reckless, politically expedient, and ultimately probably did fairly little for the behaviors we claimed to be targeting. It will take a couple years for, say, the charity community to realize how royally fucked they got in all this. Maybe the same for realtors, too.

Anyway... if all we can look at are a tiny number of data point, we are at great peril to conclude that there's something about party philosophy there. It's an anomaly.

Democrats would prefer to increase spending. Republicans would prefer to reduce revenues. Neither once generally considers the relationship between the two to be important enough to counter these primary instincts. It's a built-in problem for anyone who cares about deficits and fiscal responsibility - the inherently most boring special interest in DC.

also ping drunk guy

I was mostly out over the weekend; did we cover this?

Man Dies After Being Deported To Iraq From Michigan : NPR

Enjoying OC, eh?

(Caught a blurb on WAMU this morning)

Obama also reduced government spending:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...nment-spending

(the 10 year view shows it)

Mostly by reducing military spending. Though spending was starting to trend up a bit after 2014 (likely due to health care costs).

Generally the recent Republican talk about reducing spending, but they mostly just shift it - to defense spending

And yet ICE is 51-52% Hispanic.

Sure it happens and there are bad apples. But is ICE a cesspool of white supremacists and racists? Easier for me to believe they are acting on unauthorized immigration vs pure racism.

Fact Check: Are Half of All Border Patrol Agents Hispanic?

ICE and Border Patrol are two separate entities. They're sister agencies under the DHS, but those numbers for Border Patrol Agents shouldn't have anything to do with the makeup of ICE.

The last numbers I saw on ICE was about 30% Hispanic.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement - Wikipedia

Clinton cut spending just like Obama. Reagan, HW, W, and Trump have increased spending. Not sure where the "Democrats only care about spending" comes from. Heck, their party leadership is still touting Pay-Go as the way forward.

Let's not forget W made massive tax cuts and then increased spending. Same with Reagan.

Fair enough.

Below says 21%.

The Latino face of ICE | AL D�A News

There's a bit of "only Nixon could go to China" here, too. Voters think of the GOP as the fiscally responsible party, so they are given more leeway to expand the deficit. Voters think of Dems as the reckless party, so their feet are held to the fire.

Generally true but it also helps that congressional Republicans would rather block all legislation rather than give a Democratic president "a win".

Don't really know how it will end but its either a violent crackdown, China giving some significant concessions, or protesters fading away.

Concessions is unlikely, losing too much face and setting a precedence for next time. Protesters fading away also seems unlikely, the protesters have been pretty successful in maintaining pressure. So some sort of crackdown is my guess.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/12/asia/...hnk/index.html

I'm sure there's good people on both sides.

Ever since China took possession of Hong Kong they have been pushing the agreed upon terms for possession of it. They change the rules little by little and take away freedoms that have been in place. Of course it's going to end badly somewhere along the way, but it's completely wrong, completely autocratic authority, completely China. It's like when trump says something outrageous and everyone says, oh he'll never do that, he meant this, but then they totally do it. China does that shit all the time.

Curt Schilling 'absolutely considering' running for Congress



He will fit right in.

Always room for one more tool in the shed, and he is a big one.

I wonder why right wing extremist terrorism is up under Trump.

Schilling is another Q guy running for office. Shame he doesn't try in Rhode Island.

Enter the conspiracy theory zone: William Barr has said that there is going to be a full investigation of the Epstien suicide, and that his accomplices will be brought to justice. We already know he was buddies with Trump, but there is no way Barr is going to investigate Trump. We do know that Barr has no scruples what so ever, and has no qualms using his position for political purposes. So, when does the Clinton indictment come? How many enemies of Trump get indicted? Will there even be a token Republican?

If Dems didn't care about that relationship, then why would they constantly push for unpopular tax increase measures and/or oppose tax cuts?

Ken Cuccinelli changed the poem on the Statue of Liberty:


When asked about it text of the original poem later he said that it referred to people coming from Europe.

White nationalism rules everything around me.

Look at what "tax increase measures" most Democrats are willing to say they support, in the abstract. It's almost universally "tax on the wealthy" or "roll back the [Republican] tax cuts for the rich" or the like. That polls pretty well, Dems understand that, and when not in crisis time, they stick to the playbook.

When there's an actual crisis (negotiation over the debt limit, most recently) you'd see some bickering over the ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases as part of a budget deal - with the GOP seeking some absurd ratio like 10:1 and the Dems starting at 1:1, and then settling on 3:1 or 5:1. But it is always the Democrats who have to push the issue of revenue increases being part of any solution. Republicans are reliably pro-cut right up until the moment when something of value to virtually anyone gets nicked.

Tax cuts are indeed popular, and I think it's generally a nod to the integrity of the Dems that they don't go for them every time, the way much of the GOP will. If you're reading my comments above as simply an indictment of the Dems, you're missing my point. I judge both parties to be substantially guilty of the fiscal impasse that has relegated "fiscal responsibility" as a back-burner issue, but if there's an apportionment to be had, I'd say the blind adherence to mantra of the GOP to bear the larger burden here.

Was just coming to comment on this. What a crock. Screw them. It's bad enough to put in policies that go against American ideals, but to revise our tradition and hiatory itself?

So much for the "it's not about race" argument some here have been saying. The administration is openly saying it is.

Pretty weak IMO. Why even change the poem and deal with the uproar. Was the pro-immigration crowd really using this poem to effectively beat up Trump's immigration policies (as if anymore was really needed)? Or was it him thinking he could just slip this in quietly and make himself look good to the boss?

I'm all for greatly increased selective immigration of the highly educated. I also remember when I went through the process there was something I signed that said that I could support myself (F1, H1B).

So evaluation criteria that includes not being a "public charge" (which I think was already policy to a certain degree) to decide on candidacy is okay with me (i.e. its not the only evaluation criteria). However, the intent of the poem is pretty clear and to change it and pick a fight is pretty stupid.

I'll go more towards stupid bigotry & prejudice. My guess he would welcome anyone/most that had money regardless of race.

Don't really know the game he is playing. It would seem that China would see this as a "blink" and therefore this will undercut him in future negotiations.

But maybe Trump is looking at 2020 and doing what he needs to get re-elected.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/13/trum...thers-say.html

Jumping back in the thread a bit to the conversation on healthcare costs..

Just read this this morning and it was topical and kind of mind blowing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/b...=pocket-newtab

Getting some pop up so i will cut/paste below.


To me, this is when you know free market is dead in the healthcare world. When provider and customer can agree to a price and can travel to another country and rent facilities and still pay less and make more.

I am sure most will point to the potential for lawsuit as a major cost driver.
I wonder how many Americans would gladly pay 75% less if they waived their right to sue for errors?

I wouldn't waive my right to sue for errors but love this idea. Anything to make US Healthcare more efficient and transparent. I've heard similar for other countries (e.g. Thailand) but first time I've read the patient gets a check.

The article said additional/extra malpractice insurance is bought for the Dr but it may be harder for a patient to sue so there is that. There will be inevitable lawsuits coming out of this sooner or later.


EDIT: Oh, we should fix the damn college costs while we are at it also

You realize that the system has failed if this is a good idea, or proposed solution on any level. How can you argue to keep the current insurance run industry while proposing going outside if it in order to achieve the ends? It's a workaround to a glaring problem. Fix the problem, don't exacerbate it.

I think there is near consensus on this board that healthcare is screwed up and everyone wants to see it re-worked. From single-payer, to single-payer w/private combo; more transparency; reduce the middle-man; more interstate providers, exchanges etc. Across the Payer, Provider & Pharma markets etc.

With that all said, to get it re-worked (e.g. to fix the problem) where majority are happy will take time (e.g. even the Dems can't agree), a lot of time and its no sure thing. If the Dems can win the Presidency, House & Senate, maybe it'll happen but Senate is unlikely. So I'll settle for the low hanging fruit for now.

Yup, said state of affairs.

We're getting fucked in healthcare, no two ways about it. The only thing that surprises me about CU's article was the innovative way the arrangement company is mitigating the concerns American patients may have. Everything else sounds just like what my friend and his in laws do. His in laws are from Mexico and they drive to TJ to do any major medical or dental work.

I was informed that we don't pay for the tariffs.

The best setup for deficit reduction is a democrat president and a republican congress. Republicans have shown they are extremely dedicated to blocking anything a democrat wants and there's usually massive gridlock in this setup. Gridlock = good for reducing spending.

Republican president and Democrat congress = more deals and higher spending. Democrats are more willing to give a republican tax cuts/his wishes if they can avoid the veto on some of their projects.

Democrats president and Dem congress = pretty high spending levels, but also higher taxes on everyone to slightly balance it (but still not great for the deficit). Usually not the best business environment short term, but there could be long term benefits if spending isn't completely out of control.

Republican president and Rep congress = tax cuts and slightly higher spending levels (esp on defense). Prob the worst combo for the deficit - but you could argue that decreasing tax revenue is better for businesses and the economy (atleast in the short term).

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but looks like we might be able to put the conspiracy theories over Epstein's death to rest:


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/n...89tion=topNews

But how did three fired afford to immediately move into apartments at Trump tower? (jk)

Trump bluffs and backs down. That's his M.O. and everybody around the globe knows it.

Except for Canada, Mexico & Guatemala apparently.

Severance pay for a job well done?

It is an amazing coincidence that the Hong Kong situation has been going on for a while, yet on the day Trump delays tariffs he starts tweeting about it and how he wants to give them a chance to remedy it.

Can someone interpret what Steve King meant when he said this?

Rape babies aren't bad and necessary to the survival of humans.

Well, I mean, like everyone on the planet is descended from Genghis Khan, so yeah?

?

He's certainly backed down from Mexico and Canada threats. How many times was he going to end Nafta or impose tariffs or make Mexico pay for it when he then didn't? I'm not sure the threat to Guatemala.

NAFTA 2.0/USMCA was a win for Trump. Was it everything he wanted, no. Did NAFTA need updating/modernizing, yes. Should Trump have approached it better, absolutely.

I think we can differ on how much of a win but Trump got a lot of what he wanted and not sure what he conceded other than some status-quo stuff (e.g. Canada dispute process to stay in place).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...eres-whats-it/

Notwithstanding "paying for the Wall", Mexico and Guatemala has been bullied on unauthorized immigration.

Imagine the furor if Israeli lawmakers were denied entry to the US

So Trump's latest flight of fancy-he wants the US to buy Greenland-which of course is under the control of Denmark and is self-ruled:


Trump Eyes a New Real-Estate Purchase: Greenland - WSJ

I’m listening

It hasn't been passed and isn't in effect. He must have threatened half a dozen times to walk and kill NAFTA, but never did. Everybody knows he's all bluster. China, short of getting the US to cave on a lot of things, has no reason not to wait until after the election.

It's true it has not passed but he's negotiated it and what's put in front of Congress is advantageous to the US. I don't disagree he is a lot of bluster but he has won some stuff (mostly through threats, intimidation).

I do think China will wait till the election and see what comes of it. The only reason why China would negotiate is if their down-trending economy gets out of hand and they decide they can't wait.

Can't read wsj but found this article. Pretty funny. Denmark has GDP of $325B so maybe he can make an offer they can't refuse.

If he wants to have a 51st state, sounds like PR is the best candidate.

WSJ: Trump Wants To Buy Greenland | Talking Points Memo

I drove to Ohio and back this week and heard about fifteen minutes of Rush Limbaugh somewhere in Pennsyltucky. He sounded like a full-on Qanon believer. I guess Alex Jones moved the market and Rush followed the money.

It's an interesting shift. But like you said, when Alex Jones and such got credibility in the conservative scene, a lot of people had to shift farther into crazy town to keep up. You saw Hannitty turn to Seth Rich conspiracies. Tucker and Ingraham went from boring conservatives to full-on white supremacists.

So I think that Trump's strategy of blaming the Fed for any economic downturn is politically smart.

First, I of course agree with the long-standing bipartisan tradition of not pulling the Fed into the political fray. It is good for the long-term health and stability of the economy for the Fed to be able to operate as independently as possible. But we are not talking about the long term health and stability of the economy; we are talking about short term political gain.

Second, this manages to dovetail nicely with Trump's broader culture-war theme. The "Fed" are a bunch of egghead economists who are all over-educated and wear suits to work and think that they know better than you. "Real Americans" are out there trying to work a job, and these "coastal elites" are making it harder for them to do it.

Third, this is a complex issue that can be easily misrepresented in a simple way. 99%+ of the people don't know what the Federal Funds Rate or the Discount Rate are or what they do. But they can digest the idea that Trump says that lower is better and higher is worse and these liberal economists (because why not?) are not making it lower.

Fourth, the Fed can't defend itself. Even if Trump does not care about Fed independence, the Fed does. So unlike going after other politicians who will strike back, this is like hitting an opponent with both hands tied behind its back. Sure, you will get some media folks and retired Fed members going on dusty Sunday morning talk shows that nobody watches and defending the Fed, but that's not going to move the needle much, I think.

Overall, I think that Presidents get too much credit when the economy is good and gas prices are low and too much blame when the economy is bad and gas prices are high. And if the economy does go into recession, there might be nothing he can do to deflect the blame. But I think that he's managed to find a pretty good foil in the Fed.

Edit--I just thought of another reason. Attacking the Fed also gets you the support of the Ron Paul types who dislike central banking in general (regardless of what it is doing at any one point).

The latest Fox News poll has Trump under 40% against any of the top Dems. If the economy falters it won't matter what he says or who he blames, he'll be finished.

I wonder if FOX news cooks the polls to make it look like Trump is far behind to rally support, donations, etc....

Nah. Their polling unit is solid. They'll occasionally ask goofy questions, but their methods are good and honest. They aren't Rasmussen.

Can you imagine being so pathologically insecure that you need your press office to get out ahead of any story implying that you might have apologized for a mistake.

Correction: Trump did not apologize, a White House official tells me. He phoned the supporter, left him a message thanking him for his support, but did not use the words "sorry" or "apologize." https://t.co/0G32RSHI1G

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) August 16, 2019

This is maybe the closest we'll get to Trump acknowledging climate change. I mean, Greenland will be a gold mine when the ice is gone. This would be a solid move in some kind of political text sim.

What he will do with the info is TBD but its a good sign Trump reached out. Probably will include Trump berating Fed to reduce rates by more than 25 basis points next time around.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/16/trum...t-plunged.html

Now Denmark has offered to buy the United States. I say if they have $10, sell, baby!

Agree 100%. It's shady business by Trump, but the strategy makes sense from his end. It's goes with his "scorched earth as long as I benefit" outlook on life.

I hope this is right, but my fear is that is just because people know they don't like Trump - but haven't had a full out Trump press on the democrats yet. Remember, Clinton had a 48-36 lead over Trump in July of 2015. Heck, even Sanders was up 45-37 a year before the election. Trump is like a cockroach under the fridge that keeps coming back - even when you think he should be dead.

I think you have to consider the incumbent, with a good economy the favorite, but Trump is clearly unpopular and seems to be surviving largely due to a good economy. If the economy falters, I don't know what he will have to win with.

Unlike in 2016, an incumbent election is historically less about the opposition candidate and more of a referendum on the incumbent. This isn't a choice between A and B, particularly a B who was trying for her party's third term.
The election is basically, do you want four more years of Trump?

That being said, a ton of people will vote for him. Enthusiasm right now is at or above levels in November of 2012 and 2016. His absolute floor is probably something like 50-60 million votes, and that would likely be in a crushing defeat.

Everything has a price.

I think it will come down to a combination of how motivated the left is to vote for their candidate, as well as what negatives does that candidate have that can exploited by Trump's fear mongering. My gut feeling right now is that Trump will lose, but I wouldn't bet too much on that at this point.

My brother in law is 2 steps from the CEO of one of these companies. I just wrote him and asked him about it. Said would have been amazing to be a fly on the wall.

hxxps://theconcourse.deadspin.com/look-at-this-weird-thing-donald-trump-just-belched-up-1837315160


This is a great piece about the mindset of the idiot in chief.

Too many brown people.

So they're willing to talk.

I will throw in on more troubling polling. Pod Saves America just did some extensive polling in Wisconsin. Their thought was that, of the rust belt states, Wisconsin was going to be the hardest to flip. If Wisconsin goes Democrat, then more than likely so does Michigan and Pennsylvania, and Trump has no chance of winning.



Their polls show Trump's approval at 48%. That is well above the national average, and is exactly the approval rating of Obama when he won the state in 2012. It looks like there needs to be a good size shift still to get Rust-Belt wall back on the democratic reservation. You would think what Trump was done to the dairy farmers, and the broken promises to the car manufacturers would be enough. Somehow, for Wisconsin it still all about immigration. They have totally bought the bogey-man without seeing the real one pulling the strings.

I'll just point out that that number in Wisconsin doesn't match some other polling, but the basic idea that the election isn't a sure thing I certainly agree with.

A few things....

Trump hasn't hurt dairy farmers specifically all that much. Things were going to hell at the end of Obama's term. Some people want to come out and blame Trump for the end of my dairy farm but it's not the case at all. And I'm pretty rabidly anti-Trump. Dairy has made some inroads to China but the trade war is all about the soybeans in terms of agriculture.

I've said it a few times here, perhaps in different threads, but Wisconsin will flip blue if Milwaukee turns out to vote. Trump only got a few thousand more votes than Romney did in Wisconsin. Get somebody that excites Milwaukee (and Detroit for Michigan), and Wisconsin flips blue. I'm not buying at all that Wisconsin will be tough to flip, especially after voting out Scott Walker and re-electing Tammy Baldwin in a landslide during a mid-term election.

Dola

Also watch Iowa. The trade war with China perhaps didn't move the needle much but I've seen some pretty significant erosion of support (anecdotally) based on his ethanol policy of granting waivers to refineries from need to use ethanol. Not that these people will flip to the Democrat (God, Guns, Gays still reverberates) but perhaps enough will cast a protest vote or skip it.

The other thing about Wisconsin is that the extent to which it's "flippable" is the extent to which the latent Democratic base in Dane County (and to a some what lesser extent, Milwaukee County) show up.

This is a state that elected the first openly lesbian member to the United States Senate, after all. It's not a bastion of conservatism or even Trumpism.

What it is is a state where the GOP has had ten years to rig the rules in their favor because Democrats didn't bother to show up in 2010 and paid the political price for it.

I'm not saying it's a guaranteed flip. I AM saying Democrats were motivated enough to turn out despite the procedural roadblocks intended to smooth the way for Republican voters (and put roadblocks in the way of certain Democratic constituencies) to help Tony Evers defeat Scott Walker.

It can be done. It's less about whether rural farmers in northwest Wisconsin are still hugging Trump and more about whether the Democratic base in southern Wisconsin show up in the numbers they did in 2018.

I went thru an executive briefing at the company I am at which is a large global tech company. We are seeing some serious business slowdown. Our first quarter was very bad and the second quarter is not any better. The factors causing this are:

-China tariffs affecting our customers in China
-Strong dollar being exchanged back to the Yen as we are a Japanese corp
-Big trade war going on between Japan and Korea
-Europe-Brexit impact uncertainty and Germany economy cooling off.

The outcome is lower payout on bonus to all employees, upcoming layoffs, hiring freeze, travel freeze except for customer focused travel. We also are not backfilling any future jobs if people leave like myself as I just resigned to pursue a new job. Overall, I can attest that the global economy is a mess right now and things are looking ominous.

I still think he could shit in their mouth and they'd beg for more.

Two Trump voters, one cup?

Didn't know about Japan & Korea. Article doesn't say $ impact so not sure how big-big it is.

The South Korea and Japan trade war, explained - Vox

(Reuters) - United States Steel Corp. will temporarily lay off hundreds of workers at its Great Lakes facility in Michigan in coming weeks, according to a filing the steelmaker made with the State of Michigan.

(via ⁦@TimAeppel⁩) $X https://t.co/Eusw9a6zJJ

— Carl Quintanilla (@carlquintanilla) August 20, 2019

Wow. So. Much. Winning.

The sad thing is they will still vote for him

I guess this is what happens when you give someone that's filed for bankruptcy protection 6 times the keys to the economy.

I'm sure this is just more of the media trying to start a recession though.

For years, we had the whole "Trump keeps shooting himself in the foot even though things are going really well. I wonder how he will handle an actual problem" thing.

I think that we are about to see it, and a lot of people are going to suffer because of it, and that's a shame. I want Trump to lose re-election, but I don't want it on the backs of innocent workers.

Economic cycles are complicated and mostly out of a President's control (otherwise we'd never have downturns). But I do think that good stewardship can lessen the effects of downturns. We are, I am afraid, not about to see good stewardship.

Part of the problem is that we're already running a trillion-dollar deficit and if there's a recession and Trump loses, the GOP will turn into the biggest deficit hawks imaginable.

it truly is a thankless gig...

Daniel Dale on Twitter: "I might retire from fact-checking Trump's claim that the trade deficit with China is $500 billion. Just trust that he's still saying it and that it continues to not be true."

Trump's beginning for his middle school essay on Kashmir:

He really speaks clearly, speaks his mind, and tells it like it is!

He really was serious about buying Greenland:


Denmark is a very special country with incredible people, but based on Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s comments, that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland, I will be postponing our meeting scheduled in two weeks for another time....


The Prime Minister was able to save a great deal of expense and effort for both the United States and Denmark by being so direct. I thank her for that and look forward to rescheduling sometime in the future!

Meh,

What's unusual about wanting to buy land?

Well none of course with his own money-who knows how he'll propose spending America's money-a Greenland tax?

They've made it clear it's not for sale. The residents of Greenland do not want it. And islands being sold is outdated with the end of colonialism and slavery.

And as an American, putting one of the worst real estate businessman in the history of the world in charge of this kind of deal would be insanity.

Imagine Japan cancelling a meeting because we refuse to sell them Hawaii.

I like the idea of the US buying more land but seems like Haiti would be much more accommodating than Greenland/Denmark.

Don't know what Trump's play is here but my guess is he's playing with the press and distracting them from other more important news.

JFC

We aren't buying other countries and we shouldn't act like asking is normal.

Stop.

Both sides, put your partisan feelings aside for a moment and imagine you went into a coma 10 years ago and woke up today to this headline:


"President Donald Trump Indefinitely Postpones Scheduled Meeting With Denmark's Prime Minister Because She Refused To Discuss Selling Greenland To U.S."

It really is Idiocracy in our time.

Fun distraction from talks of recession.

Speaking of recession, apparently Mulvaney told a group of big GOP donors that if there is a recession it will be moderate and short.

There's clearly a lot of worry all around.

dola

This is plausible. What if Trump can't see?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ust-blind.html