US Politics: Papers, Please

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Red Tiger said:

Your view on Thomas Sowell?

Another conservative idiot. A couple of threads back I had some comments about Sowell's retirement. Sowell has criticized Janet Yellen, yet I'm not aware of Sowell being regarded as a well regarded monetary economist. I'm not aware of him writing any serious academic papers on the subject.

He criticized the FED for expansionary monetary policy and then invoked Friedman's argument that the FED caused the Great Depression. Yet, what he failed to mention is that Friedman criticized the FED back during the Great Depression for being too tight.

He made the claim that Reagan's tax cuts "increased tax revenues" without adjusting for inflation, the business cycle, and overall growth trends in revenue. He should have known better than that.

And I'm pretty sure he believed that Reagan's tax cuts were responsible for the economic recovery during the 1980s, when even people like Martin Feldstein believed it was because of monetary policy.

He blamed the financial crises on government housing policy, but then didn't explain how that works under the efficient market hypothesis which I presume he believes in.

[Werthead]

Trump confirming he'll be abolishing the rules preventing tax-exempt organisations from endorsing parties and candidates.

"The world is in trouble but I'm going to straight it out. That's what I do, I fix things...it's not going to be pretty for a while." Trump on terrorism and Islamic extremism. Still, we were told many times that Trump was non-interventionist, wouldn't get America involved in foreign military adventures and wasn't as much of a hawk as Hillary, so I'm sure there's nothing to worry about.

Apparently the Trump administration has been calling individual European countries about bilateral trade deals. They told them to fuck off, because they need to speak to the European Union commission as per EU law. Stupidity or deliberate undermining of the union?

[butterbumps!]

How does the supposedly progressive language of the Muslim ban work effectively to convince the liberally minded, who care about LGBTQ rights, to turn against muslims when this esteemed administration is simultaneously drafting a Religious Freedom EO to ossify the right to discriminate against the LGBTQ community for religious reasons?  Idk how effective the co-opting of progressive language can be here when the Christian Right is so unambiguously hostile to civil rights.   

[Mlle. Zabzie]

18 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Trump confirming he'll be abolishing the rules preventing tax-exempt organisations from endorsing parties and candidates.

"The world is in trouble but I'm going to straight it out. That's what I do, I fix things...it's not going to be pretty for a while." Trump on terrorism and Islamic extremism. Still, we were told many times that Trump was non-interventionist, wouldn't get America involved in foreign military adventures and wasn't as much of a hawk as Hillary, so I'm sure there's nothing to worry about.

Apparently the Trump administration has been calling individual European countries about bilateral trade deals. They told them to fuck off, because they need to speak to the European Union commission as per EU law. Stupidity or deliberate undermining of the union?

It will be hard for him to do that without Congress because it's statutory.  It's nice to say he's going to do that, but it does require a statutory change.  Maybe this Congress would pass that.  Hard to say, really.

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

There have have been some conservative people that do hold PHD's that have made some wildly dumb statements. Perhaps my favorite has been University of Chicago's John Cochrane, who made some real howlers back in the day.

As someone who himself has a Ph.D., I'm afraid I have to point out that Ph.D.'s of all political persuasions have made some wildly dumb statements.

Having a Ph. D. means you have extensive course work in one narrow field and have gotten four people to pass you on one major research project. To expect people with Ph.D.'s to be automatically be smart about topics other than those closely connected to the field they got their degree in has always been a fallacy. And of course even experts are occasionally wrong in their own field, Ph.D. or not.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ormond said:

As someone who himself has a Ph.D., I'm afraid I have to point out that Ph.D.'s of all political persuasions have made some wildly dumb statements.

Having a Ph. D. means you have extensive course work in one narrow field and have gotten four people to pass you on one major research project. To expect people with Ph.D.'s to be automatically be smart about topics other than those closely connected to the field they got their degree in has always been a fallacy. And of course even experts are occasionally wrong in their own field, Ph.D. or not.

Yeah, I don't disagree with this. I know Cochrane who I have criticized is very smart. He actually, in my opinion, is a very good writer. His book Asset Pricing actually makes a complex topic easily understandable.

Where he got into trouble is when he started talking about macro and monetary policy, not his specialty, and letting his conservative views get in the way, to the point of making freshman level mistakes like:

 

Quote

 First, if money is not going to be printed, it has to come from somewhere. If the government borrows a dollar from you, that is a dollar that you do not spend, or that you do not lend to a company to spend on new investment. Every dollar of increased government spending must correspond to one less dollar of private spending.  Jobs created by stimulus spending are offset by jobs lost from the decline in private spending. We can build roads instead of factories, but fiscal stimulus can’t help us to build more of both. This is just accounting, and does not need a complex argument about “crowding out”...

That just isn't true where the fed sets an interest rate and the supply of money and credit endogenously respond and the response will depend on the level of spending. Cochrane should have known better. Or reviewed some of his undergraduate notes or whatever.

Anyway, I've never been a big fan of arguments from authority. My main point is that saying somebody like Moore doesn't have a PHD isn't really the issue. The real issue is that he is just frickin wrong.

[Werthead]

Quote

It will be hard for him to do that without Congress because it's statutory.  It's nice to say he's going to do that, but it does require a statutory change.  Maybe this Congress would pass that.  Hard to say, really.

Given that we've been told that Trump wouldn't win the election, wouldn't enact his campaign promises, wouldn't build the wall with Mexico and wouldn't ban Muslims and he's doing all of that, this is less than encouraging.

I think it's clear that Republicans are wary of this (it could backfire massively, especially if a really major Trump controversy explodes that leads to him being abandoned by the religious right) but I think it's also now clear that Trump will exert his maximum influence to get them to change the law. Amongst other things, since Trump has filed papers for 2020, this would allow religious organisations to fundraise on his behalf, which could lead to a titanic war chest for the 2020 campagin.

[Fragile Bird]

Saw Tillerson's speech at the State Department. Apologized for being late because the National Prayer Meeting ran late. He said maybe it was because people feel the need to pray a little more these days.

He also praised career state department employees and said he expected everyone to respect others no matter what their beliefs were, even if they were beliefs they didn't agree with. And that he was going to hold himself accountable and responsible for things he does.

[Fragile Bird]

Aw bloody hell.

NYT just posted breaking news that Trump says he will destroy the restrictions on churches preventing them from being political.

[Commodore]

more impotent rage, Dems not showing up for committee hearings, so they don't get to vote on cabinet appointments

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Commodore said:

more impotent rage, Dems not showing up for committee hearings, so they don't get to vote on cabinet appointments

Didn't the Republicans pull the same tactic a while back? I believe they did.

Just goes to prove what I have always suspected. When you start to play hardball with conservatives, they start whining.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

 

28 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Given that we've been told that Trump wouldn't win the election, wouldn't enact his campaign promises, wouldn't build the wall with Mexico and wouldn't ban Muslims and he's doing all of that, this is less than encouraging.

I think it's clear that Republicans are wary of this (it could backfire massively, especially if a really major Trump controversy explodes that leads to him being abandoned by the religious right) but I think it's also now clear that Trump will exert his maximum influence to get them to change the law. Amongst other things, since Trump has filed papers for 2020, this would allow religious organisations to fundraise on his behalf, which could lead to a titanic war chest for the 2020 campagin.

I'd be curious whether they would change the law in a way that would actually allow 501(c)(3) monies to be contributed directly to a campaign.  There would be the normal First Amendment arguments post Citizens United.  However, I do wonder whether they would set it up so that someone could in effect make a tax deductible campaign contribution. That cuts both ways and not necessarily in favor of Trump.

14 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Aw bloody hell.

NYT just posted breaking news that Trump says he will destroy the restrictions on churches preventing them from being political.

See above.

But honestly, from a principled place, I can't necessarily disagree with this.  We can argue whether a church should have a tax exemption or not.  But they do, under statute.  So I've always been a little uncomfortable with muzzling what a priest, pastor, rabbi or imam can say from the pulpit (and this cuts both ways - I remember people being upset about liberal churches preaching against Bush back in the early aughts).  I know why it is ok on a technical ground, but it has never set well with me.  That is, folks real issue is that they have a tax exemption in the first place.  (And honestly, the tax exemption is not really an "establishment" of a religion in my view as it doesn't discriminate or require participation in any religious act).  It doesn't necessarily follow that this will be a huge boon to Trump.

[Fragile Bird]

Well, considering that Trump asked for prayers for the Apprentice at the National Prayer Breakfast, I wonder what kind of Christian he is. I mean, who the f*** asks for prayers for ratings for a reality tv show at the National Prayer Breakfast?

But on the topic of churches and politics, someone please enlighten me. I thought churches were restrained from taking part in advertising for or against candidates during an election, and this is what Trump has promised to change. Am I misunderstanding this?

[OldGimletEye]

 

Just now, Fragile Bird said:

Well, considering that Trump asked for prayers for the Apprentice at the National Prayer Breakfast, I wonder what kind of Christian he is. I mean, who the f*** asks for prayers for ratings for a reality tv show at the National Prayer Breakfast?

Well, evidently, he is a crotch grabbin, golden shower lovin, truth challenged, adultery approving sort of Christian.

But, so long as he hates all the right people, it's all good, evidently.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Agree with this. There is so much from the right to ridicule and criticize that this isn't necessary.

The protesters need a new playbook here. This was beyond unnecessary, it was just plain stupid. How many people do you think are going to show up for a Milo speech at Berkeley? 200? Put him in a large auditorium and tape how anemic the crowd looks, that would be more damaging to his brand. The one legit card this one note joke has to play is the one the protesters hand him.

[Mexal]

Two things I saw today.

1. The Trump Treasury just relaxed the sanctions on Russia to allow for approved transactions with the FSB. This is the first step to getting rid of them completely I'm sure as it allows American businesses to start laying the groundwork to do business with Russia again. At least that's how I read it. Maybe I'm misinterpreting?

2. In the month of January, 57 bomb threats have been called in at Jewish Centers across the United States. This isn't being talked about at all. Just yesterday, we got word that the CVE program to targeted violent extremists was going to remove everyone who wasn't Muslim from the list. We are 2 weeks into the presidency. Does anyone truly believe this is going to stop over the next 4 years? 57 bomb threats in a single month. It's only going to get worse.

ETA: Here's a third thing.

3. Vladimir Kara-Murza, a Kremlin critic who is part of a pro-democracy group, has suddenly fallen ill two years after suspected poisoning. 

 

[Fragile Bird]

"And Jesus wept"?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

47 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Well, considering that Trump asked for prayers for the Apprentice at the National Prayer Breakfast, I wonder what kind of Christian he is. I mean, who the f*** asks for prayers for ratings for a reality tv show at the National Prayer Breakfast?

But on the topic of churches and politics, someone please enlighten me. I thought churches were restrained from taking part in advertising for or against candidates during an election, and this is what Trump has promised to change. Am I misunderstanding this?

Yes, there is a statutory prohibition in Section 501(c )(3).  Trump cannot change it by fiat.  The law would have to be changed through Congressional action.  Who the hell knows what is going to happen in tax reform.  That could be part of it.

[Fragile Bird]

Thanks!

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

Apparently the Trump administration has been calling individual European countries about bilateral trade deals. They told them to fuck off, because they need to speak to the European Union commission as per EU law. Stupidity or deliberate undermining of the union?

Deliberate. Trump's foreign policy and trade deals is based on divide and rule. If the US were to negotiate with countries seperately, they would have more leverage (bigger market) and more manpower to handle negotiations. If you follow that logic, it's really not that surprising that he is happy about Brexit. And that's also why he sends negotiators to deal with the TPP countries seperately. I am somewhat curious if the Canadians will play ball with regards to NAFTA and Mexico.