Said Donald Trump, offering up his economic plan in Detroit today.
I chose to link to BBC.com after rejecting the NYT article that ran under the headline "Donald Trump, Hoping to Change Subjects, Says He Will Bring Prosperity." How does the NYT know what hope lurks in the dark heart of Donald Trump? This is the NYT, which is also running an article today called "Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism." I'm going to deal with that in a separate post, but I just want to say that I'm finding most of the articles about the election completely unclickable these days. I realize there has always been plenty of bias, but I'd try to read through it. Now, the headlines are tawdry clickbait... clickbait for somebody else.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४९ टिप्पण्या:
I think there used to be journalists. Anyone who got into journalism because they were inspired by Woodward and Bernstein ought to turn in his degree. They should be embarrassed, but it's hard to be embarrassed inside of the bubble.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump plans to "jump start" the US economy by suspending new regulations and cutting corporate taxes.
Those all sound like a good sentiments to me. I believe that would probably do far more to help the economy than anything our current administration has attempted, and certainly be less damaging than a massive minimum wage hike.
Agree about the clickbait. So many of my friends in the tank for Hillary can't even see it. The lack of objective thinking is distressing, but not something to discuss on Facebook.
What I'd like to see besides the usual talk of taxes (which while important aren't the main thing stifling business growth) is some program geared towards reducing or limiting the licensing and regulatory burden on businesses at the state and local level (perhaps through federal pre-emption, via Commerce Clause power). That, and cut back the legal and regulatory obstacles to hiring (payroll taxes, EEOC burdens, etc.) which may not create that many jobs but can make a difference in the margins.
And maybe suspend the minimum wage for a broader class of jobs.
It used to be standard J school teaching that the reporter is not to assume to know someone's feelings. We know only what they state or do.
But most these hacks didn't come up through that system anyway. J school is for losers. Winners got easy English degrees at nice schools and had connections.
"Those all sound like a good sentiments to me. I believe that would probably do far more to help the economy than anything our current administration has attempted, and certainly be less damaging than a massive minimum wage hike."
Depends on the regulations--usually Republicans just point to EPA rules, but a lot of the most damaging ones are related to state licensing (e.g., try charging people to paint their nails in your living room--good luck!) or employment rules (together with minimum wage hikes, make it that much more attractive to simply squeeze more work in fewer hours from fewer employees, or replace them with computers).
Sure it won't be that hard. It will be particularly easy to jump-start America when it is purring along just fine. The hard boot that was required in 2009, that took some skill.
It's bound to work better than the 'Stimulus Package'.
Yep. Journalism has gone from biased to insane.
It will be particularly easy to jump-start America when it is purring along just fine.
When did you become a Trump booster?
It's too bad that the "hard boot" never happened, then, isn't it? Obama is the only President in history who never had above a 3% growth rate.
Was he uniquely unlucky? Hardly: Coolidge, FDR, Reagan all inherited disastrous economies. FDR managed to turn his big recession into the Great Depression. Obama decided that sounded like a great idea, instead of following Coolidge and Reagan. As a consequence, we've doubled our National Debt, every single year we spend the "Stimulus" (because Democrats are incapable of budgeting anymore and force a "continuing resolution"), and we still are stuck in the mud, only with tons and tons of borrowing.
Of course, I think the leftists here actually think that piling up unimaginable debt is a good thing.
--Vance
"The hard boot that was required in 2009, that took some skill"
You mean convincing 10+M workers to drop out of the economy so that you could pretend the unemployment rate was back down?
Reading between the lines I suspect Larry Kudlow provided the substance behind the speech.
The NYT is beyond biased.............
The economy is not "purring along just fine." Adjust for population growth and inflation, and it is steadily sliding downwards. Frog in warming waters.
So often our economy is measured by how well Wall Street is doing. Our current economy is heavily invested in a global economic system that doesn't always translate to Main Street.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
The hard boot that was required in 2009, that took some skill.
But did it really require a hard boot stamping on a human face -- forever?
"Donald Trump, Hoping to Change Subjects, Says He Will Bring Prosperity." The New York Times, Hoping Not to Change Subjects, Says Trump Is Still Crazy.
I don't pay attention to US media anymore, either - at least not for this election. I find the BBC World News much better for my morning radio news.
Meanwhile, 50 Republican former national security officials under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush sign a joint statement opposing Trump for president on national security grounds. Not an endorsement of Clinton 'cause no unity on that subject. Despite the brouhaha over the Clinton server/email fiasco, no similar statement against Clinton yet.
And the 538 daily "now-cast" table on "Chance of winning" has Hillary Clinton 95.3%, Donald Trump 4.7%.
A chicken in every pot
There is a certain growing contrast between the Obama/Clinton approach and Crazy Donald Trump approach.
The people understand there is a level of corruption in all politics and figure it all works that way for the best somehow. It's all hidden anyway.
But people do not understand a noble Billionaire who says that he wants to work for truth, Justice and the American way for them for free.
Ergo: Trump cannot be trusted...he seems unreal.But Hillary is familiar and she can only steal so much.
last time we had a goper President that cut taxes and regulations.... economic disaster.
yay...
"Agree about the clickbait. So many of my friends in the tank for Hillary can't even see it. "
I just left Madison after a brief visit on the road. It is sad how so many there seem resigned to Hillary. Worse, you can't even talk politics. We are heading South now to look for Bernie's and Trump's America.
America first is a far better policy than resetting the cold war with Russia, social justice adventurism to remove politically unprofitable leaders, global humanitarian disasters through avoidance and relocation, redistributive change (e.g. progressive debt) and immigration reform in lieu of economic revitalization, etc.
One day last week I counted, actually counted, 15 anti-Trump headlines on Washington Post's online front page. Click bait for sure. I did click on some to see how far off balance they were. Way off balance. I think one was the crying baby lie. Of course, there were no anti-Hillary stories.
'And the 538 daily "now-cast" table on "Chance of winning" has Hillary Clinton 95.3%, Donald Trump 4.7%.'
Curious, isn't it? The message we are constantly hammered with is how hopelessly far behind Trump is, and yet certain forces fear him enough to coordinate constant disruptions of his speeches, keep pushing the "doom-and-gloom for Trump" headlines and the obligatory "prominent Republican [no one who follows this has ever heard of] endorses Hillary" stories, etc. It's almost as though they're afraid of something. They should be. Aside from the likelihood that Trump gets her to admit ordering the code red during the debates (remember, she's been kept hidden for most of this process; he's been slugging it out almost daily), there is still the threat of the leaked emails out there. Only fools find comfort (or despair) in polls not taken in November.
CBS is in full campaign mode. You should have heard Charlie Rose tonight.
It is so blatant it is funny.
50 Republican former national security officials under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush sign a joint statement opposing Trump for president on national security grounds since the world is now a dangerous place.
Trump: "And you know who made this world such a dangerous place? These guys!
What has to be remembered is tha Crooked Hillary supposedly also has an economic plan, but hers is a essentially more of the same that has caused the 8 year long recession - easily the longest post war recovery, as well as the worst. She wants more Keynesian stimulus that allows her and her cronies to skim even more money from the national treasury. And then finance it with a middle class tax increase. In short, a plan guaranteed to keep the country to come out of the Obama Recession. The trick to coming out of the recession is not to spend more money, but rather to get the govt out of the way.
Turns out 538 updates its polls throughout the day. "Now-cast" poll latest:
Hillary Clinton
96.4%
Donald Trump
3.6%
Wonder how Trump's advice to Roger Ailes is going right now . . . .
The enemedia will possibly cause Trump to be elected. Fine with me but not, presumably, what they have in mind.
machine said...
last time we had a goper President that cut taxes and regulations.... economic disaster.
yay...
Sshh. The grownups are talking.
last time we had a goper President that cut taxes and regulations.... economic disaster.
Regs like Glass-Steagall? Uff Da!
The Democrat plan seems to be little more than redistributive/recycled change, smoothing functions, progressive debt, replacement immigration, and creative destruction.
The Dems and the Neocons are all about crony capitalism. There is no discernible difference between them, other than the Neocons giving lip service to social/moral issues when it seems expedient.
@n.n - which is why her plan virtually guarantees 4 more years of recession. Turns out that Keynesian economics didn't work to get us out of the Great Depression, which was the one place Keynes thought that it would work and clearly we not work any other time. We have the longest recession since the along with a doubling of the national debt and a labor participation rate the lowest since that time. Why are the Des so enameled with failed economic policies? Because that is where the money is. (Then) Speaker Pelosi gave away the gae when she essentially said that if spending money I'd the important thing then they might as well spend it on their favorite causes, which coincidentally made them and their cronies fabulously rich, while the rest of the country remains mired in the longest recession in the last 75 years. No doubt, with Crooked Hillary as grifter in chief, we know right now what family foundation is going to rake in many millions selling off access to the billions that she wants to spend.
Keynesian economics rewards debt and discourages savings and that just seems wrong to me. But I'm no economist.
Bruce Hayden, mockturtle:
To be fair, Keynesian economics is based on the premise of "saving for a rainy day." Classical progressives introduced public smoothing functions encompassing welfare and entitlements, where before they were handled by private entities (e.g. Christian Churches, insurance companies). Democrat economics established and progressed the very lucrative welfare industry. Republican economics have focused on capitalism, but failed to note the consequences of monopoly formation (i.e. left-wing economics), subversion of private entities, etc. Also, it must be noted that for better or worse the government as authorized representative of a sovereign entity has become the lender of first and last resort.
320Busdriver said...
last time we had a goper President that cut taxes and regulations.... economic disaster.
For whom?
"last time we had a goper President that cut taxes and regulations.... economic disaster."
I think in the other thread we were talking about the mistake of confusing correlation with causation.
If you think Bush "caused" the economic disaster of 2008, can you at least point to how cutting tax rates caused the financial markets to collapse? Or which regulations he changed that caused this?
Hint--even if you think repealing Glass Steagal did this (which it didn't, and besides that law had been reduced to basically nothing by the time it was finally repealed) please remember that it was repealed before Bush took office.
@rusty
I was simply pointing out that it was our dear friends R Rubin and L Summers of the Clinton Treasury who were instrumental in passage of Graham Leach Bliley. President Clinton signed the bill. Machine claimed "disaster" followed tax and regulatory reduction by a gop admin. I agree that the seeds of the financial crisis were sown by reduction of regulations like Glass Steagall, but I would point out that this was done by Clinton and his cronies, not by a gop admin.
http://fortune.com/2016/03/13/robert-rubin-financial-crisis-commission-justice-department/
"I agree that the seeds of the financial crisis were sown by reduction of regulations like Glass Steagall"
Glass Steagall had been gradually reduced over decades--banks were already involved in a lot of non-traditional activities by the time it was repealed. But it wasn't "banks investing in risky securities" that caused the collapse--in fact, the institutions in the most trouble were non-bank institutions (Lehman, etc.) and to the extent banks got into trouble it was when they absorbed some of these troubled institutions at the regulators' request.
But more importantly, what was at the root of the collapse? It wasn't simply "bad loans were packaged into securitizations" but rather "bad loans were made in the first place". And bad loans were made in part because regulators wanted to encourage extending credit to the "underserved" (who were bad credit risks), in part because banks assumed the risks of default were lower than they were, but mostly because lenders, borrowers and regulators all enjoyed a collective delusion that real estate values would continue to go up and based their risk taking on that.
So it's hard to imagine a world where Glass Steagall stayed in place and somehow prevented that collective delusion from causing a financial collapse in 2008. It was a bubble like any other.
Brando, Agreed. It was only a part of the whole complex picture. Again I would argue that it was reduction of regs/ oversight under Clinton associated with the CRA and its nexus with the GSE's that set the stage for 2008. To blame a gop admin for these things, well, that dog don't hunt.
"It was only a part of the whole complex picture. Again I would argue that it was reduction of regs/ oversight under Clinton associated with the CRA and its nexus with the GSE's that set the stage for 2008. To blame a gop admin for these things, well, that dog don't hunt."
That's true--as far as contributing factors go, there were more of them under Clinton's deregulation than anything Bush did (the only relevant deregulation under Bush I could think of was the Bankruptcy Reform law, which I think Hillary voted for, and would not have affected the housing bubble).
320busdriver @ 7:33
I think the democrat congress is largely to blame. Bush the younger sent more than ten letters to congress that warned of pressuring banks to make risky loans was a bad idea. Banks who balked were threatened with an audit. Of course they're going to make the loans. The banks strategy was to pass the loans around so that their bank wasn't holding the phony paper when the music stopped. It was so obvious that friends in the home construction business were making bets on when it would collapse.
The Seattle Times has a front page headline: Trump Touts Economic Plan.
They would never say Hillary "touts" something - she would "present" or "detail" her plan.
Little things, little things.
"They would never say Hillary "touts" something - she would "present" or "detail" her plan."
Is "tout" really negative? I could see that working both ways. Now, if they said "Trump bungles out some stupid excuse for a plan" I'd say they need to move that to the Op Ed pages...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा