The Trump Presidency – 2016

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

As you mention half of that is baby boomers. We'll likely never reach the peaks we saw in the 80's and 90's when the baby boomers were in their prime years. The decline has also coincided with increase in attending college. If you look at those same numbers for prime working years of 25-54, the numbers have been steadily getting better.

It's an interesting puzzle though. I know a lot of economists disagree on reasons for the remaining drop. Some say it's all about the economy. Some thing it's more complex and might include secondary earners who are only willing to go back to work if the right situation appeared.

Regardless, it doesn't have anything to do with Obamacare hurting actual business bottom lines as tarcone implied. Businesses are thriving even if you conclude that there are many people out of work.

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.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

You know, if Streep had gotten up there and talked about "Real Americans" and their love of America by the way they protect the second amendment...and on and on, she would have gotten an entirely different reaction from the right. The fact that she was an citizen with a big platform to speak from would have been seen as a plus instead of a negative.

The tropes would have been how Hollywood could learn a thing or two from her and how more actors and actresses with these views should stand up and talk about it. Instead we're left with arguments that these people shouldn't speak because their platforms are already too big and as single citizens, they shouldn't be allowed to use that to push some kind of agenda.

It's this double sided thinking that undermines the entire argument against her that is being made.

On a different tangent, if any, I mean any Democratic candidate for President had EVER tried to tell a company that they HAD to stay in the US or else, they would have been branded as the most anti-american, anti-capitalist, enemy of the state that has ever existed in American political history. So the idea that somehow the Republicans are going slip this past the public as something they came up with, for the betterment of the country is really beyond me.

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.

[NobodyHere]

Canceled hearing could complicate Mattis' confirmation

[larrymcg421]

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

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

It’s Time to Blame Obamacare for Losing So Many Full-Time Jobs | The Fiscal Times

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

“The evidence suggests that the [Affordable Care Act] has at least modestly elevated involuntary part-time employment,” Goldman Sachs economist Alec Philips wrote in a research note published on Wednesday. Obamacare had the greatest impact on industries that traditionally do not offer strong health insurance coverage, such as retail stores and the hospitality industry. Phillips noted that these have the highest levels of involuntary part-time workers, and believes that the ACA has forced “a few hundred thousand” to take cuts in hours or accept part-time work as a result.

....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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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

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

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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

Not when only half of it is explained by retirees.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

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.

Encumbered exchange | The Economist

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

[digamma]

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?

[Flasch186]

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.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

I'm sure you can get decent odds on this especially if he doesn't curb his Twitter meltdowns.

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Not when only half of it is explained by retirees.

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.

[PilotMan]

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

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.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

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

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.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by lon

Well in that case, it's great that we've spent the past couple months hearing about how the out-of-touch Democrats lost the election because they didn't spend enough time in the Rust Belt telling 'economically anxious' factory workers and coal miners they'd have jobs!

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.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Arent those called California and Texas?

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

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

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.

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.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

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.

[Shkspr]

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.

[Radii]

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.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

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.

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

[tarcone]

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

[LWSFS]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Here's the thing, seriously:

Russia appears to be less hostile to a halfway tolerable United States than the current (D) / liberal left.

I'd put Putin's ass in the WH over anyone misguided enough to associate themselves with the (D) brand in a heartbeat ... and, push come to shove, so would a LOT of Trump voters. He's at least occasionally sane, something we see far less frequently from the internal enemies.

When people say we don't care, honestly, we really don't.

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

[stevew]

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

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

[JPhillips]

Amazing what a massive, debt funded stimulus could do!

[cuervo72]

Man, never heard of rules like that before.

USOGE | Gifts from Outside Sources

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

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.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

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.

[tarcone]

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.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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

So, here are the exceptions to the Missouri rule:

"Gift" does not include (i) unsolicited tokens or awards of appreciation, honorary degrees, or bona fide awards in recognition of public service in the form of a plaque, trophy, desk item, wall memento, and similar items, provided that any such item shall not be in a form which can be readily converted to cash; (ii) sample merchandise, promotional items, and appreciation tokens, if they are routinely given to customers, suppliers, or potential customers or suppliers in the ordinary course of business; (iii) gifts, devises, or inheritances from family members; (iv) gifts from other state employees; (v) gifts from personal friends where it is clear that the gift is motivated by personal friendship and not by the employee's position; or (vi) meals, lodging,transportation or other benefits resulting from the business or employment activities of an employee's spouse when it is clear that such benefits have not been offered or enhanced because of the employee's position.

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

[tarcone]

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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.

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.

[tarcone]

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

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.

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.

[Zinto]

Originally Posted by tarcone

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.

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

[tarcone]

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.

[ISiddiqui]

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.

[Zinto]

Originally Posted by tarcone

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.

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

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

[digamma]

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.

[NobodyHere]

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

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

LOL

[JPhillips]

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

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.

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

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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

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