Impressed by the Trump administration part II

posted by QuakerOats

BTW -  the senate bill ELIMINATES the individual mandate in obamaKare ------ THANK GOD !!!!!

Goin with the ole launder it through the insurance company move in the budget deal IMHO. 

posted by QuakerOats

Listening to dems cry about the tax bill because it will add a trillion dollars to the debt over the next 10 years (which is false to begin with), when they just endorsed obama adding TEN TRILLION in 8 years is simply hilarious.  Literally unbelievable. 

Also funny how you completely discount the Great Recession. If the economy goes into recession any time soon or under this tax reform it will make the nominal deficits of the Obama years look paltry. But hey guess what - gop or dem the deficit is going to go up during recessions! 

smh at BS's BS.  There is nothing in the current plan that will truly inflate deficits/debt.  Lowering RATES always increases revenues; it has happened every time.  The problem is ALWAYS on the spending side.  This plan would actually eliminate deficits and decrease the debt if we only cut out the 'one-time' TARP spending that NEVER disappeared after '09-'10.  

Get in the game. 

posted by QuakerOats

smh at BS's BS.  There is nothing in the current plan that will truly inflate deficits/debt.  Lowering RATES always increases revenues; it has happened every time.  The problem is ALWAYS on the spending side.  This plan would actually eliminate deficits and decrease the debt if we only cut out the 'one-time' TARP spending that NEVER disappeared after '09-'10.  

 

 

Get in the game. 

We have had these exchange a million times and nothing ever changes. In nominal dollars Federal spending and and federal revenues have gone up every year since the Founding. Moreover, even with that taken into account EVERYONE AGREES - EVEN THE GOP CONGRESS - that without corresponding reductions in spending - the reduction in revenue compared to the level there otherwise would be will require the treasury to issue $1 - $1.5 trillion more treasuries AT LEAST.

I actually don’t think that is a bad thing and believe the tax plan is a net positive but that is that. 

What is different though is that suddenly the GOP no longer demands offsetting spending cuts when they actually have the power to do it with 51 votes! 

So ask yourself - why in the face of these budget projections are they doing things like proposing an AMT for corporations, potential automatic tax rate hikes in the future (which undermine the long term supply-side benefits of the plan) and not offer automatic triggered reductions in spending instead? 

I just want to see a little bit of the same hysteria about lack of spending cuts as when Democrats have power. I’m not even talking equivalence here. The GOP could reduce spending with 51 votes but it’s not even on the radar?

Because - Surprise, surprise - the lamentations of the Obama years were just partisan B.S. My humble opinion is that this is partly why I think the GOP on net is worse. Obama and co. say they want to tax and spend and they do. The GOP says they want to cut taxes and cut spending but they only cut spending. 

(Oddly enough that makes the GOP probably more in line with my views on fiscal policy since I think we need permanently higher deficits...I just wish the tax cuts were larger for less well off e.g. payroll tax cuts but I can’t get past all the fake anti-spending deficit-fauxkery) 

Border crossings now down 45% 

ICE deportations from those already here illegally up 40% 

More winning

posted by QuakerOats

Border crossings now down 45% 

ICE deportations from those already here illegally up 40% 

 

 

More winning

 

While it may be easy to cite Trump as the reason, if this continues, honestly, is there reason there needs to be a multi billion dollar wall built? 

Can't we just continue to upgrade certain parts of the border, and use modern technology? Wouldn't that be a more cost effective and rational thing to do?

posted by ptown_trojans_1

While it may be easy to cite Trump as the reason, if this continues, honestly, is there reason there needs to be a multi billion dollar wall built? 

Yeah, but once Trump really gets the economy humming the illegals will come pouring back into the US!  :)

Another solid jobs report.  I like the numbers being added to the manufacturing sector. 

Onward and upward.

ISIS has been routed from Iraq and Syria with an ease and speed that's surprised even the men and women who carried out the mission.

More on this: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/12/08/trump-mattis-turn-military-loose-on-isis-leaving-terror-caliphate-in-tatters.html
 

will not see anywhere on major media, same with jobs numbers etc...    

posted by QuakerOats

ISIS has been routed from Iraq and Syria with an ease and speed that's surprised even the men and women who carried out the mission.

More on this: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/12/08/trump-mattis-turn-military-loose-on-isis-leaving-terror-caliphate-in-tatters.html
 

 

 

 

will not see anywhere on major media, same with jobs numbers etc...    

Hold up. 

Last thing first uhhh yeah those stories are all over the major media. I received two alerts on my phone this AM about the jobs report. It is being reported man. 

On your post about ISIS, that is being reported as well as the increase in military troops in Syria. We have now have 2k troops in Syria. If it is going as well as you say, I guess we should expect those 2k troops to come home or be redeployed somewhere else in the near future. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/12/06/there-are-four-times-as-many-u-s-troops-in-syria-as-previously-acknowledged-by-the-pentagon/?utm_term=.feae9c8c246a

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/pentagon-us-committed-syria/index.html 

another gotcha headline from the Wapo

posted by QuakerOats

another gotcha headline from the Wapo

If you say so...

We still have about 2k troops there. 

posted by QuakerOats

another gotcha headline from the Wapo

Well, considering your usual sources (such as your cut-n-paste of Drudge headlines), if there's one thing you'd understand, it's the use of "gotcha headlines".

EDIT: And wait a minute! You're the person who's repeatedly said to me when I knock one of your right-wing blog sources that I'm just knocking the messenger without reading the message. Pot, kettle, black.

The headline could easily have read that the US has made great inroads in Syria in defeating ISIS etc..... (which is exactly how it would read if obama was prez)

Instead, sine they MUST put a negative spin on anything-Trump, they essentially say pentagon/trump have hoodwinked us on troop counts and hid shit ..........I am surprised the word Russia was not intertwined somehow.

The left-wing media has lost ALL credibility; it is nothing but a shit show.  Own it.

posted by QuakerOats

The headline could easily have read that the US has made great inroads in Syria in defeating ISIS etc..... (which is exactly how it would read if obama was prez)

Instead, sine they MUST put a negative spin on anything-Trump, they essentially say pentagon/trump have hoodwinked us on troop counts and hid shit ..........I am surprised the word Russia was not intertwined somehow.

The left-wing media has lost ALL credibility; it is nothing but a shit show.  Own it.

 

 

Which is no different from the right-wing media (Fox, Breitbart, whoever) that you spent the last eight years cheerleading whenever they negatively spun something, so try harder.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I received two alerts on my phone this AM about the jobs report. It is being reported man. 

Technically, the job pace is a bit behind Obama's last 12 months.  2.2M jobs (over 12 months, I believe) is only about 400k above the rate needed to pace population growth.

And I think I mentioned it before, but we're probably 2.5M jobs behind true "full employment".  These are people who have long given up and no longer count in the artificially low unemployment number.

Now, I also saw where job postings are at like a 15-yr high, but I'm pretty skeptical of that number for a couple of reasons.  While anecdotally I do hear of employers having trouble filling jobs, I think it's also the case with technology today that many of these are "perma-postings" that are collecting resumes in order to have a pool to draw from for turnover.  And you have postings that are more "nice to have" instead of need, in the sense of if a local candidate has the right experience and asking price then they might hire you. 

There also clearly are structural issues where employees are not willing to relocate where the jobs are, but employers aren't doing much to help make that happen.  Larger implications there of incentives for both employer and employee.  Millions of people either out-of-the-workforce or underemployed, but there are 6.5M unfilled job postings?   I call bullshit on that.

We've seen an uptick in optimism and some planning/investment, but I don't expect to see much real movement until Trump's economic plans actually get thru Congress.  And I haven't seen anything to address the above lack of mobility in the workforce.

And we have a major problem with jobs going unfilled because a ridiculously high percent ofapplicants fail drug tests.

posted by gut

Technically, the job pace is a bit behind Obama's last 12 months.  2.2M jobs (over 12 months, I believe) is only about 400k above the rate needed to pace population growth.

And I think I mentioned it before, but we're probably 2.5M jobs behind true "full employment".  These are people who have long given up and no longer count in the artificially low unemployment number.

Now, I also saw where job postings are at like a 15-yr high, but I'm pretty skeptical of that number for a couple of reasons.  While anecdotally I do hear of employers having trouble filling jobs, I think it's also the case with technology today that many of these are "perma-postings" that are collecting resumes in order to have a pool to draw from for turnover.  And you have postings that are more "nice to have" instead of need, in the sense of if a local candidate has the right experience and asking price then they might hire you. 

There also clearly are structural issues where employees are not willing to relocate where the jobs are, but employers aren't doing much to help make that happen.  Larger implications there of incentives for both employer and employee.  Millions of people either out-of-the-workforce or underemployed, but there are 6.5M unfilled job postings?   I call bullshit on that.

We've seen an uptick in optimism and some planning/investment, but I don't expect to see much real movement until Trump's economic plans actually get thru Congress.  And I haven't seen anything to address the above lack of mobility in the workforce.

 

I'd largely agree with that. The labor participation rate has slowly ticked up, which is great. But, there is still a long way to go. Wages too have largely been meh, flat in areas. 

The relocation issue is a big one I know for some fields. I know some people just simply do not want to move to a small town or a big city. I know I moved to DC from Ohio for school, but also becasue I knew the job prospects would be better. I do know relocating is expensive as shit and companies could kick in as a bonus to pay for moving expenses. Some companies I know do this, but I'm not sure if it is something a lot of companies do. 

I know in my field now, transportation and infrastructure, there is a constant demand for technical jobs to be filled on complex job sites. There is a serious lack of engineers and designers as more and more of the baby boomers retire. The industry feels that it may be hammered if boomers retire and there is that huge influx of projects on the infrastructure side. The demand is high, but the technical skills and know-how is simply not there yet. 

The industry is unsure yet how to address it, other than the usual, there needs to be more training and education, more STEM and engineers in the field. 

posted by QuakerOats

And we have a major problem with jobs going unfilled because a ridiculously high percent ofapplicants fail drug tests.

That is true. I'm not sure of the solution in that one. 

posted by QuakerOats

And we have a major problem with jobs going unfilled because a ridiculously high percent ofapplicants fail drug tests.

I have never had a company tell me they are having trouble filling jobs because of failed drug tests.

posted by gut

I have never had a company tell me they are having trouble filling jobs because of failed drug tests.

This article from over the summer from a plant in Wisconsin provides the example where the plant has to bring in robots becasue they cannot get people hired to actually do the work due to laziness/ drug failures. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/rise-of-the-machines/2017/08/05/631e20ba-76df-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.8097d51847f1