Obama speech

[sggatecl]

when did he stoke fear in or of Mexicans, Muslims or Blacks?

The inability to say Nazis are bad people is probably a good start. I imagine there are other instances. He opens his mouth an awful lot and stupid shit often comes out.

 

[Spartanmack]

The inability to say Nazis are bad people is probably a good start. I imagine there are other instances. He opens his mouth an awful lot and stupid shit often comes out.

nobody is saying he never said anything stupid or that in this case, what he didn't say wasn't stupid. The point is, Trump's comments about illegal immigrants crossing the border have been wrongly characterized as racist remarks about Mexicans - same with the travel ban. There was never a proposed ban to prevent Muslims from coming to the US. Also, Muslims aren't a race - it's an ideology that's in question here and it's not racist to discriminate against ideology that stands in direct contrast to western values and the founding principles of America. People who believe honor killings are OK or that death is the appropriate punishment for apostasy, homosexuality or insulting the prophet, or people who think it's ok to throw acid in the faces of their children or sibling for refusing an arranged marriage or not covering their faces shouldn't be allowed to come to the United States. To mischaracterize the sentiments of what his words or policies so he can be labeled a racist is just the left's tactic to shut down debate and avoid discussing the facts.

 

[Polish-Hammer]

very good. I wish he'd go away though. we're in this mess right now in large part because of him.

He spent trillions of dollars invading countries in the middle east destabalizing the entire region for over a decade and counting?

 

[sggatecl]

He spent trillions of dollars invading countries in the middle east destabalizing the entire region for over a decade and counting?

That been our modus operandi for much, much longer than Obama. But yeah, he had his drone game on maximum overdrive.

Maybe when Germany inevitably decides to take a shit on the rest of Europe for a third time we'll just stay out of it.

 

[Spartanmack]

oops...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoIhgYtVQGU


this pretty much destroys both the "Obama gets the credit" and the "All the tax cuts went to stock buybacks" arguments.

 

[biggunsbob]

Lmao
I guess that is why wages remain flat for workers and CEO wages have increased 17.6 %. People are so happy the money is trickling upwards!

http://www.post-gazette.com/busines...ies-raises-workers-wages/stories/201808160128

Hey at least he mentioned what Obama started with and had to clean Bush and the GOP’ mess. But any prick who says the ACA was a issue can fucking go to hell. The GOP did everything in their power to destroy the ACA and make it not work, and yet millions signed up and received healthcare. Something the GOP does not give two shits about.

So explain why the GOP cares about Deficits when the Democrats Are in power ?
GOP are such hypocrites.
Novel concept .. Healthcare for everyone and cheap affordable college and or tech schools without much debt and watch the economy grow.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stanco...been-playing-us-all-for-suckers/#1c07aee34694

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-fuel-historic-u-s-deficits-cbo-idUSKBN1HG2RW

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-republicans-growing-deficit/

 

[Gulo Blue]

this pretty much destroys both the "Obama gets the credit" and the "All the tax cuts went to stock buybacks" arguments.

Other than the opinion charts, those look clear as day like trends that turned around before Trump was elected.

 

[Spartanmack]

Lmao
I guess that is why wages remain flat for workers and CEO wages have increased 17.6 %. People are so happy the money is trickling upwards!

http://www.post-gazette.com/busines...ies-raises-workers-wages/stories/201808160128

Hey at least he mentioned Obama started with and had to clean Bush and the GOP? mess.
But any prick who says the ACA was a issue can fucking go to hell. The GOP did everything in their power to destroy the ACA and make it not work, and yet millions signed up and received healthcare. Something the GOP does not give two shits about.

So explain why the GOP cares about Deficits when the Democrats Are in power ?
GOP are such hypocrites.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stanco...been-playing-us-all-for-suckers/#1c07aee34694

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-fuel-historic-u-s-deficits-cbo-idUSKBN1HG2RW

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-republicans-growing-deficit/

nobody's defending the deficit bob. try to stay on point. So the CBO who said the ACA would have a negative affect on growth, can go fuck themselves? And the truth about the millions who got healthcare is that most of the incremental coverage came from the massive expansion of Medicaid, which could have been done without mucking up the private insurance market and driving premiums through the roof. So yeah, it was and is a failure, despite your inability to look at it objectively.

 

[tigermud]

 

[Spartanmack]

Other than the opinion charts, those look clear as day like trends that turned around before Trump was elected.

that's definitely not true.

1. - the second set of charts track business investment (definitely not an opinion chart) which is up $300 and it is clearly a reversal, not a continuation of a trend.
2. The next charts, durable goods orders and capital goods shipments - actual orders and shipments, not opinions about orders is also a clear reversal of a trend.

That's 2 of the first 3 sets of charts and the 1st set, although it's an survey or an opinion, it's a widely followed leading indicator of economic activity, same with the 4th set (the ISM PMI - it is s survey, but it's backward looking about actual activity). Also, while the New Business Applications was trending upward, it accelerated dramatically about a 1/4 after the election, that's not a continuation of a trend. Same w/ the workers reentering the workforce, although that acceleration has not been as dramatic.

Blue collar job growth, also not an opinion poll is another example of a reversal of a trend.

At best, there are 2 charts that look like a continuation of a trend but it's not clear as day as both accelerated noticeably after the election.

 

[Gulo Blue]

that's definitely not true.

1. - the second set of charts track business investment (definitely not an opinion chart) which is up $300 and it is clearly a reversal, not a continuation of a trend.
2. The next charts, durable goods orders and capital goods shipments - actual orders and shipments, not opinions about orders is also a clear reversal of a trend.

That's 2 of the first 3 sets of charts and the 1st set, although it's an survey or an opinion, it's a widely followed leading indicator of economic activity, same with the 4th set (the ISM PMI - it is s survey, but it's backward looking about actual activity). Also, while the New Business Applications was trending upward, it accelerated dramatically about a 1/4 after the election, that's not a continuation of a trend. Same w/ the workers reentering the workforce, although that acceleration has not been as dramatic.

Blue collar job growth, also not an opinion poll is another example of a reversal of a trend.

At best, there are 2 charts that look like a continuation of a trend but it's not clear as day as both accelerated noticeably after the election.

Maybe what's clear as day to me isn't as clear as day to everyone. The second set of charts don't pop like the opinion charts. Trends slow down, stop, reverse course, then go in the other direction. A mechanical analogy for that kind of behavior would be something with inertia. To get that kind of behavior, the corrective action doesn't happen when the data changes direction, it happens at the inflection point when the negative progress starts slowing down. The fact that you see this same behavior over and over in all 3 of the 2nd set of charts, and then again in the next 2 charts, and again at the 5:49 mark and the 8 minute mark makes me think we're seeing the same thing over and over. Similar time scale for the slowing and reversing, across all these metrics. Whatever it is to cause the change in direction, it happened closer to the end of 2015 than 2016.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Are you in investing? And would your read of those charts be pretty typical?
My skepticism is creeping up as I read other things...

 

[Spartanmack]

Maybe what's clear as day to me isn't as clear as day to everyone. The second set of charts don't pop like the opinion charts. Trends slow down, stop, reverse course, then go in the other direction. A mechanical analogy for that kind of behavior would be something with inertia. To get that kind of behavior, the corrective action doesn't happen when the data changes direction, it happens at the inflection point when the negative progress starts slowing down. The fact that you see this same behavior over and over in all 3 of the 2nd set of charts, and then again in the next 2 charts, and again at the 5:49 mark and the 8 minute mark makes me think we're seeing the same thing over and over. Similar time scale for the slowing and reversing, across all these metrics. Whatever it is to cause the change in direction, it happened closer to the end of 2015 than 2016.

of course they don't pop like the opinion charts because opinions change much faster but the change is stark and dramatic. Trends don't slow, stop and reverse randomly - there are drivers that are causing those changes and it's quite clear what the catalyst is. What happened at the end of 2015 was a slowing of the negative trend due to Obama being a lame duck president and having even less chance of pushing his agenda growth killing agenda through congressional opposition. You have to be out of your mind to think that flattening and subsequent skyrocketing after he left office was due to a lag for results of his policies. And yes, you are seeing the same thing over and over - it's evidence on top of evidence.

 

[Spartanmack]

Are you in investing? And would your read of those charts be pretty typical?
My skepticism is creeping up as I read other things...

Investing is a separate issue - the stock market isn't a great indicator of economic activity as evidenced by the fact the fed has inflated asset prices at a rather hot pace during what has been a very shallow, prolonged recovery.

Because valuations are stretched (although they've come in off their peaks), I'm cautiously optimistic for the markets. Right now, I'm looking at short duration bond funds (don't like to buy individual bonds) in credit - can get decent yield with limited interest rate risk. I still like growth on the equity side but would be paring back that exposure and looking to shift to more value holdings and bonds over the next couple years. Most leading indicators are still positive and the yield curve is flattening but not inverted - and it usually takes 2 years for the recession to be realized after the curve inverts anyway. If the Fed does what it's telegraphing and the 10 year stays put, inversion is a 18-24 months away. I think we still have a couple of years for equities but I don't expect 2017 type numbers - I expect it to be more subdued appreciation.

 

[Gulo Blue]

of course they don't pop like the opinion charts because opinions change much faster but the change is stark and dramatic. Trends don't slow, stop and reverse randomly - there are drivers that are causing those changes and it's quite clear what the catalyst is. What happened at the end of 2015 was a slowing of the negative trend due to Obama being a lame duck president and having even less chance of pushing his agenda through congressional opposition. You have to be out of your mind to think that flattening and subsequent skyrocketing after he left office was due to a lag for results of his policies. And yes, you are seeing the same thing over and over - it's evidence on top of evidence.

Good. End of 2015 is all I wanted there. I'm skeptical of the lame duck interpretation because it coincides with a period of declining optimism, probably something else entirely.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Investing is a separate issue - the stock market isn't a great indicator of economic activity as evidenced by the fact the fed has inflated asset prices at a rather hot pace during what has been a very shallow, prolonged recovery.

Because valuations are stretched (although they've come in off their peaks), I'm cautiously optimistic for the markets. Right now, I'm looking at short duration bond funds (don't like to buy individual bonds) in credit - can get decent yield with limited interest rate risk. I still like growth on the equity side but would be paring back that exposure and looking to shift to more value holdings and bonds over the next couple years. Most leading indicators are still positive and the yield curve is flattening but not inverted - and it usually takes 2 years for the recession to be realized after the curve inverts anyway. If the Fed does what it's telegraphing and the 10 year stays put, inversion is a 18-24 months away. I think we still have a couple of years for equities but I don't expect 2017 type numbers - I expect it to be more subdued appreciation.

Aren't financial types growing skeptical of the value of the yield curve as an indicator?

 

[Spartanmack]

Aren't financial types growing skeptical of the value of the yield curve as an indicator?

to some degree but everyone still watches it. And I don't think the signal of an inverted yield curve would be interpreted much differently. Plus, it's one of a dozen or so leading indicators.

 

[Spartanmack]

Good. End of 2015 is all I wanted there. I'm skeptical of the lame duck interpretation because it coincides with a period of declining optimism, probably something else entirely.

You can think what you want, but the idea that the benefits of Obama's policies had a 5 to 7 year lag, flat lined for a year then were suddenly realized in massive, abrupt gains, all while according to people like Bob, Trump came along and implemented the worst economic policies the world has ever seen, is simply ludicrous.

 

[Gulo Blue]

You can think what you want, but the idea that the benefits of Obama's policies had a 5 to 7 year lag, flat lined for a year then were suddenly realized in massive, abrupt gains, all while according to people like Bob, Trump came along and implemented the worst economic policies the world has ever seen, is simply ludicrous.

I don't think we've seen the impact of Trump's policies yet. He's very anti-trade, but he's had a lot of push back on the tariffs he wants . I don't think he got anything to happen until just 3-4 months ago. My impression is that it's nearly unanimous among economists that this is a terrible idea.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2018/05/04/1100-economists-no-trump-tariffs/#6133c45940fb

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't think we've seen the impact of Trump's policies yet. He's very anti-trade, but he's had a lot of push back on the tariffs he wants . I don't think he got anything to happen until just 3-4 months ago. My impression is that it's nearly unanimous among economists that this is a terrible idea.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2018/05/04/1100-economists-no-trump-tariffs/#6133c45940fb

I disagree, I think the fixed asset investment from the private sector is entirely due to tax reform, as is the uptick in blue collar employment.

I also don't think Trump is anti-trade and while I'm not fan of Trump's tariffs I think the purpose of them is to get better trade deals, not permanent tariffs. It worked with Mexico and it brought Canada to the table. I'm willing to wait to see how it works with China. Again, I don't like tariffs but nothing else has worked in terms of negotiating better trade deals. I agree with most economists who say trade deficits themselves aren't bad, but that's not the problem. The problem is those deficits are the results of trade deals dramatically that favor one side. When China's economy was in the very early stages of development, that made more sense, but they have a substantial economy, growing middle class and are the stage now where a more fair deal needs to be negotiated.