HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Stonepounder » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

Stonepounder

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Jun 27, 2010, 10:05 PM
Number of posts: 4,033

Journal Archives

How The Federal Reserve Could Rain On Trumps Tax Cut Parade

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON ― Republicans say their tax overhaul bill will juice the economy, and most economists agree that cutting corporate taxes could boost growth, at least in the short term.

But one reason the boost won’t be as strong as Republicans might like is that the Federal Reserve would be expected to move to keep that growth in check.

<snip>

“If the tax cuts are deficit financed, that is going to juice the economy and it will overheat, significantly raising the odds of a recession early in the next decade,” Zandi told HuffPost.

<snip>

The Fed has a dual mandate to maximize employment and keep the rate of price growth stable, pursuing the latter goal by targeting a 2 percent inflation rate. If inflation show signs of exceeding the 2 percent threshold, the Fed could hit the brakes by raising an influential interest rate. An increase in the benchmark federal funds rate ― the rate banks charge one another for overnight lending ― would dampen economic growth by raising the cost of credit throughout the economy.

Read more: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-federal-reserve-offset-tax-cuts_us_5a2076cae4b03350e0b55f99?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009



So just about any way you look at it there is no way that they will get the economic growth they are prattling on about.

Our country that has existed for 240 years is no more.
Posted by Stonepounder | Fri Dec 1, 2017, 01:09 AM (8 replies)

In the first nearly 200 years of its history, the US impeached only one President.

In the last 40 years we have forced one to resign to avoid impeachment, impeached one, one and will probably impeach another.

Interestingly enough the legislation that gave birth to today's PACs was passed in 1971, three years before Nixon's resignation.

Does anyone question the implication that today's government is 'of the Oligarchs, by the Oligarchs, and for the Oligarchs'? I am including large corporations under the umbrella term 'Oligarch' since Citizens United gave corporations 'personhood' status.

Some Congressmen have openly stated that they can't vote against the abomination of a Tax Bill that Congress is trying to ram through because then 'big money' would basically throw them out of office. And, at the same time, the GOP is working just as fast as it can to stuff the Federal Judiciary with as many Oligarch-friendly judges as it can.

The GOP is a treasonous party that does NOT believe in the Constitution of the United States and desires nothing more than to be part of the gravy train and screw the constituents. Folks, we are well and truly screwed and there is not a damn thing we can do about it, since all three branches of government are totally against us.

More interesting dots connecting.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross divested many of his holdings. One holding he kept was in a company called Navigator Holdings, a shipping company specializing in transporting liquified natural gas around the world.

The (in)famous Paradise Papers have exposed that Ross has made millions from his holding in Navigator, through a network of holding companies in the Cayman Islands. Navigator's biggest client is the Russian petrochemicals giant Sibur, whose biggest stake holder is Kirill Shamanov, a Russian billionaire and the son of one of Vladimir Putin’s inner circle of oligarchs. He’s also married to Putin’s youngest daughter.

So, Ross is making millions via his investment in a company connected directly to Putin. And this is our Commerce Secretary.

{sigh}

Info pulled from http://verifiedpolitics.com/putins-daughter-just-got-outed-wife-trumps-commerce-secretarys-business-partner/

Sandy & Richaed Riccardi - As Time Goes "Bye!"

Yet another clueless move by 'the gang that doesn't care about shooting straight'.

Kellyanne 'alternate reality bozo' Conway spouted off on Faux News on Monday:

"Doug Jones in Alabama, folks, don't be fooled. He will be a vote against tax cuts. He is weak on crime. Weak on borders. He is strong on raising your taxes. He is terrible for property owners.

I'm telling you that we want the votes in the Senate to get this tax bill through. And the media -- if the media were really concerned about all of these allegations, and if that's what this is truly about, and the Democrats -- Al Franken would be on the ash heap of bygone half funny comedians"


Enter the Hatch Act:

The 1939 Act forbids the intimidation or bribery of voters and restricts political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibits using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes. It forbids officials paid with federal funds from using promises of jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit to coerce campaign contributions or political support.


(Emphasis mine)

The penalty, as specified in the act is:

Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be immediately removed from the position or office held by him, and thereafter no part of the funds appropriated by any Act of Congress for such position or office shall be used to pay the compensation of such person.


What happens when there is a blatant violation of the Hatch Act - Kellyanne clearly violated the Act - and the President ignores the fact and keeps her on and keeps paying her? Trump has already stated that the Ethics laws don't apply to the White House, how about other laws? What happens when Trump & Co blatantly refuse to obey laws they don't agree with and Congress does nothing?

When do we accept that the United States, as we have known it all our lives no longer exists?

We (men) can't be perfect all the time, no matter how hard we try.

I can state categorically that I have never in my life knowingly sexually harassed or assaulted a woman.

I can also state categorically that I have, on a few occasions, made a woman feel uncomfortable by my behavior.

I ain't perfect, but I try to be respectful of boundaries. I haven't always (the vast majority of the time, but not always) succeeded.

Let me tell you how it should work. Many years ago I worked as a contractor for the U.S. Post Office in San Jose, CA. Eventually I was 'promoted' to 'Team Leader'. (Note: the only thing 'Team Leader' meant was that I became the other contractors in my department came to if they had an issue or conflict between USPO demands and the rules of our contract. They would come to me and I, in turn would go to either the Contract manager or the USPO supervisor to resolve the issue.)

There was a woman on our team who thought that she deserved the job and was angry that I had been 'promoted' instead of her. One day she called me and demanded that I come to her cube because she had 'something she needed to discuss'. I went to her cube, resolved her issue, and then told her that the proper procedure was for her to come to me, not demand that I come to her. At which point she decided to file a 'sexual discrimination' complaint against me.

Our contracting manager and the USPS Department Manager immediately began interviewing me, her, and every other contractor and USPS employee in the Dept. After all interviews were complete, the determination was that no discrimination had occurred.

She appealed.

So, the issue was kicked up to the Division USPS guy and the Division contracting rep. Again everyone was interviewed, again, no discrimination.

She appealed again.

Special investigators were flown in from Washington DC. Again interviews, a review of why I was promoted, a review of why I was chosen over her. How I interacted with other contractors. How I interacted with supervisors. Etc. Final decision, no discrimination. The woman who filed the complaint was given the choice of staying in our dept or being transferred to another dept. She chose the transfer.

The point being that her complaint was taken seriously, was investigated throughly and impartially, and we both came out of it with our reputations intact.

Had I offended her? Absolutely. Was I in the wrong? I never felt that I had. Did she think I was wrong? I'm sure she did.

But that's how an issue like that should be resolved. Not in the press, not in a rush to judgement. If you are willing to make a claim, then be willing to have it investigated. In the case of Roy Moore there is plenty of contemporaneous testimony that the events occurred. In the case of Al Franken, there is none. In the case of Trumpenstein there is plenty of contemporaneous testimony.

Most of us men admit we ain't perfect. But we do our best.

FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use

Source: Washington Post

Federal regulators unveiled a plan Tuesday that would give Internet providers broad powers to determine what websites and online services their customers can see and use, and at what cost.

The move sets the stage for a crucial vote next month at the Federal Communications Commission that could reshape the entire digital ecosystem. The FCC’s Republican chairman, Ajit Pai, has made undoing the government's net neutrality rules one of his top priorities, and Tuesday's move hands a win to broadband companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

Pai is taking aim at regulations that were approved two years ago under a Democratic presidency and that sought to make sure all Internet content, whether from big or small companies, would be treated equally by Internet providers.

The decision will be put to a vote at the agency's Dec. 14 meeting in Washington. It is expected to pass, with Republicans controlling three of the commission's five seats.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/21/the-fcc-has-unveiled-its-plan-to-rollback-its-net-neutrality-rules/?utm_term=.24aa0a270693



Well, y'all, its been good to know ya.

Trump Warns That Dumping Roy Moore Could Start a Dangerous Trend of Believing Women (Borowitz)

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-warns-that-dumping-roy-moore-could-start-a-dangerous-trend-of-believing-women?mbid=nl_111517%20Borowitz%20Newsletter%20(1)&CNDID=27161810&spMailingID=12367657&spUserID=MTMzMTgyODIwMTg3S0&spJobID=1281432228&spReportId=MTI4MTQzMjIyOAS2

Trump Warns That Dumping Roy Moore Could Start a Dangerous Trend of Believing Women

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Breaking his silence on Alabama’s embattled Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate, Donald Trump warned on Wednesday that dumping Roy Moore could start a “dangerous trend” of believing women. “I think we need to be very, very careful here,” Trump told reporters. “This is not just about Roy Moore. This is about our country deciding that we are going to start believing women, something that we have never done before.

“This is a very dangerous road we’re heading down,” he said. Trump cautioned that, if instituted, a new practice of believing women would “totally destroy” the system that the country already has in place. “For years we’ve had a system of believing men,” he said. “It’s worked very well. It’s done a great job.”

He said that he was considering a number of measures to stem the tide of women’s credibility, including an executive order banning women from giving believable accounts to the press. “That’s something we’re looking into,” he indicated.

Trump painted a doomsday scenario of what might happen if the “very bad trend” of believing women gained traction in the country. “If people believe Roy Moore’s five accusers, what happens to a man who has, say, about twenty accusers?” he asked. “I don’t like where this is going.”

Trump's winning strategy in China and the world. NOT!

From WaPo: President Trump delivered a fiery speech on trade in Danang on Friday, declaring that he would not allow the United States to be “taken advantage of anymore” and planned to place “America first.”

And then, less than 24 hours later, 11 Pacific Rim countries collectively shrugged and moved on without the U.S., signing the TPP without the US.
........

There was a very interesting interview with Evan Osnoss on Ezra Klein’s podcast about this. The Chinese government can’t believe this is really happening. This is a process they expected to take another 30-40 years.

But Trump just gave it to them. By pulling out of TPP, by pulling out of Paris, the world has turned to China. China is the economic world leader now.

And with the vanishing of the US state department on the world stage and the weak and laughable Trump president nationally, the moral leadership of the US also rapidly declined. And made it easy to secure more power at home for Xi.

The Chinese almost mistrust this situation, it goes against their ideas on how change works.
In just 10 months and the damage is probably irreparable for the greater part. If Trump would disappear, how can US traditional allies trust it will not happen again soon?

Who would have thought that one man, with the complicity of the GOP could effectively destroy the US as a world leader and reduce it to a poor cousin and that the world would simply move on without us.

Sometimes you just have to love Karma. Remember Kim Davis? See below.

http://verifiedpolitics.com/kim-davis-just-got-bad-news-gay-man-denied-marriage-license/

Kim Davis Just Got Bad News From A Gay Man She Denied a Marriage License To

A gay man who was denied a marriage license by the former Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis may now be her challenger in next year’s election.

Davis is the county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, who gained international notoriety in August 2015 when she defied a U.S. federal court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples due to her Apostolic Pentecostal Christian faith. Her wilful defiance of the law resulted in her spending six days in jail for contempt of court.

This week Davis announced that she would run for re-election, this time as a Republican, the party she switched to after the controversy over her refusal to issue licenses for same-sex marriages erupted.

So far no Democrat has officially announced plans to run against her, but now David Ermold, an English professor who was denied a license by Davis to marry his same-sex fiance, is looking to jump into the race to prevent her re-election.


I am definitely going to keep an eye on this one. If he actually does run I will scrape together some $$ to send to his campaign!
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »