Monday, January 1, 2018

2017 Losers of the year

Honorable mention:

Roy Moore and Steve Bannon - Democrat Doug Jones winning a special election in Alabama, was probably the most unlikely and embarrassing Senate loss in our lifetime. This can be attributed directly to the horrifying candidacy of Roy Moore, and the influence of Steve Bannon. Roy Moore is politically done, and Bannon's influence in the GOP is next to nothing.

Never Trumpers - Sorry gang, but it looks like the President is here to stay, and is starting to find his groove. Might want to take up a more meaningful cause.

Barrack Obama - What a helpless feeling it must be. To sit back and watch eight years of your "legacy" being erased over the course of a few months. The Paris accord is history. The Iran deal is on shaky legs. Trade agreements are being undone. Environmental policies are being overturned. One of the key parts of the signature Obamacare law has been repealed. Eventually, there may be nothing left of the Obama legacy... other than the distinction that he was the first Black President.

The media - Another troubling year for the media, who collectively seems to spend about half their time fighting back against the charges of "fake news". CNN has had the most embarrassing of years, but still seem incapable of any self reflection. The CNN ad campaign about the Apple, was mocked mercilessly, and with good reason. The term "Is it real, or did you hear it on CNN" went viral. In one week alone, the main stream media had to issue corrections on three major anti-Trump stories. In one case, the correction led to the suspension of and ultimate recusal from any Trump coverage by Brian Ross. Oh, and let's not forget the entire Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose situations. Just in case, the media thought they were above the whole sexual harassment deal!

Second runner up:

Al Franken - I put this under the category of "it could not have happened to a nicer guy".  Al Franken holds the distinction of probably the highest profile politician who was forced to step down amidst allegations of improper sexual behavior. While many times, the accused can deny and deflect such allegations, funny guy Al actually thought it was a good idea to take a thousand word picture of his harassment. When multiple women came forward with similar stories of but grabbing, and forced kissing, it became too much to bear, and members of his own Party started to call for his resignation. What makes Franken a bigger loser, was the classless way in which he handled his resignation. Not offering much in terms of apology, and hedging his bets by not making his resignation immediate. There is still speculation (and it's my belief) that had things gone a little differently, that Franken would have attempted to hand on to his seat.

First runner up:

Hollywood - Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Richard Dreyfus,  Dustin Hoffman, Ben Affleck, Andy Dick (go figure), and Louis C.K.  Just a few examples of the Hollywood elites who were accused of sexual harassment in 2017. Couple that with a continued drop in domestic box office revenue, and 2017 was not a good year for Hollywood.

2017 Losers of the year:

The FBI and Robert Mueller - One might argue that 2017 started with a unified American public holding the FBI and former director Robert Mueller in high regards. It's relatively hard to argue the same holds true at the end of 2017.  Unfortunately, the public is mixed (in a largely partisan manner) about the Russian collusion investigation, which in many ways "is" the problem. The reality is that the FBI still refuses to explain to Congress what prompted the investigation, and the special counsel appears to have been hatched as part of a personal vendetta by former director James Comey. Neither reality allows for much public trust in the process. Moreover, evidence mounts that the Mueller team is dominated by pro-Hillary, anti-Trump players, some of whom had an active role in allowing Clinton off the hook. There is no question that objectivity has become a question.

168 comments:

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

2017 was the most important in my life.
The liver transplant in June saved my life.
Praise the Lord.

Anonymous said...

Really, damn Roger.self-inflicted wounds.

Anonymous said...

2017 biggest Loser
Wealth Envy

Being in the Investor/ wealth creator class is suddenly cool again.

Comey said...



Here’s hoping 2018 brings more ethical leadership, focused on the truth and lasting values. Happy New Year, everybody.

--James Comey

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Fuck you k'putz.You have been told time after time that i had an inherited liver disease. I was born with it, you ignorant jack off.

Even five years after I quit drinking, the liver continued to deteriorate because of the PCLD It was NOT self inflicted. I'm not envious of anything you inherited. I think it's a waste giving you anything.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

2017 was the most important in my life.
The liver transplant in June saved my life.
Praise the Lord.

wphamilton said...

I'd say that Trump has had a really hard year, and probably rates being in the top 2 or 3 spots of biggest loser. Possibly the top spot.

Just the fact that some people, the fact that Trump hasn't been impeached yet is their biggest rationale for a "win" shows you just how paltry his wins actually are. In the meantime he is besieged by scandals of his own creating, members of his Administration falling one after another in disgrace, (former) allies publicly wondering WHT is going on with him, legislative failure after another due to divisions he has fostered, and an investigation that looks stronger now than when it started. But he hasn't been impeached yet.

Loretta said...

"Eventually, there may be nothing left of the Obama legacy... other than the distinction that he was the first Black President"

Eventually?

We're already there.

Loretta said...

"shows you just how paltry his wins actually are."

You sure spend a lot of time bitching about his "paltry" wins, lol.

TDS.

Commonsense said...

Definitely TDS.

President Trump is still president Trump despite all of the hysterical talk about the 25th amendment and impeachment.

Commonsense said...

Here’s hoping 2018 brings more ethical leadership, focused on the truth and lasting values. Happy New Year, everybody.

--James Comey


Firing you was a good start.

-- Anonymous Twitter user in response


Heh!

Anonymous said...

Eventually?

We're already there.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i find it ironic that a guy like 0linsky, a guy whose every move and utterance was a cold, political calculation designed to secure a legacy, is now having that legacy wiped away so thoroughly as to be left as nothing more than a footnote in history.

skeets' legacy?

"yup. we elected a black guy once. seemed like a good idea at the time..."


Commonsense said...

Electing a black guy is not a bad idea. We just elected the wrong black guy.

Anonymous said...

HB grow up stop blaming everything and everyone for your troubles.

Loser.

Anonymous said...

What does a slow minded loser like HB look like fully triggered, this after repeatedly telling us he has his many addictions under control, .

"Fuck you k'putz.You have been told time after time that i had an inherited liver disease. I was born with it, you ignorant jack off.

Even five years after I quit drinking, the liver continued to deteriorate because of the PCLD It was NOT self inflicted. I'm not envious of anything you inherited. I think it's a waste giving you anything."

Your inheritance was the mud in the bottom of the human gene pool, and that muck made you a angry slow minded low IQ social Parasite.

Anonymous said...

skeets' legacy?" RRB

Well I will let PBS Sexual Predator Travis Smiley answer that when he repeatedly said.

"PBS host Tavis Smiley acknowledges that he, and others, got "so caught up in the symbolism of the Obama presidency," that they didn't press as hard as they should have on issues that are important to the black community.

"Sadly, and it pains me to say this, over the last decade black folk, in the era of Obama have lost ground in every major economic category," Smiley said Friday in an interview with Huffington Post. "Not one, two or three [categories], but every major economic category, black americans have lost ground"

"We've been so caught up in the symbolism of the Obama presidency, we haven't pressed as hard as we should on the substance of this presidency," Smiley said. "Black people and black leaders have been too deferential to this president."

Commonsense said...

If would drive the white liberals and their black lackys crazy if the best thing to ever happen to the black community was the election of Donald John Trump as President of the United States.

Anonymous said...




NRO's andy mccarthy took the time to chronicle the series of bullshit spins the ny times has been peddling as their collusion narrative:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455036/new-york-times-trump-russia-collusion-narrative-reset-george-papadopoulos-carter-page


an unvetted and unverified dossier paid for by the clinton's and used as evidence in pursuit of a FISA warrant is becoming a bit of a problem...

COMMIE said...

an unvetted and unverified dossier paid for by the clinton's

Just like the NRO opinion piece, rat hole....LOL

Commonsense said...

Dennis never misses an opportunity to show off his stupidity.

Commie said...

Dennis never misses an opportunity to show off his stupidity.

That's the best you got McPea brain??? Get to work collecting garbage, something you do best. LOLOLOL

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The biggest loser is Trump. He passed the fewest number of legislation since who knows.

Second place Steve Bannon.

Third place CHT. His Trumpism stage four mentality has damaged his credibility beyond belief.

commie said...

Moreover, evidence mounts that the Mueller team is dominated by pro-Hillary, anti-Trump players, some of whom had an active role in allowing Clinton off the hook.

There is no question that objectivity has become a question.

Once again CH making shit up. The evidence is conclusive that our esteemed host has lost every shred of objectivity in all his screeds. Too much faux news and a complete lack of thinking has taken over your life.....

wphamilton said...

Nope. I've spent a lot of time bitching about the Republicans tax package, but mostly about Trump's failures. I count his wins on two fingers: the top loaded tax break, and appoint judges. Both automatic "gimme's" with this Congress.

It's delusional to think of that as TDS. Calling Trump a top winner because he isn't impeached is delusional.

Commonsense said...

You forgotten all of the ruinous regulations Trump rolled back and resulting economic growth it created.

Oh, and the ISIS caliphate was destroyed also.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The registrations removed product safety regulations and health insurance, leaving 13 million Americans without health insurance.

The work place safety regulations that endanger Trump supporters lives.

The worst tax reform bill in history, and is contrary to the bill he promised in the campaign.

commie said...

You forgotten all of the ruinous regulations Trump rolled back

You seemed to have forgotten those regulations got us out of the busch depression, doubled plus the dow and resulted in 88 months of employment growth. The only thing corps will do with their tax breaks is buy back stock since they will not reinvest in capital as trump thinks...Remember who left osama alive and who actually finished the job....

Commonsense said...

You seemed to have forgotten those regulations got us out of the busch depression

Facts say otherwise. If anything they prolonged the recession and stunted the economic recovery.

Commonsense said...

The registrations removed product safety regulations and health insurance, leaving 13 million Americans without health insurance

And yet Americans remain safe and healthy and now they have a choice of not paying thousands of dollars for sham health insurance coverage.

Anonymous said...

Yet we have not seen the millions dying from the change in freedom from ObumbleCare .

NOTE

in 2015 and 2016 a key measure of the health of the nation fell, both years life Expectancy went down.

Anonymous said...

Facts say otherwise. If anything they prolonged the recession and stunted the economic recovery." CS

Exactly , and that stimuless bill was and I quote Obimbo "those jobs were not so shovel ready, ha ha ha ha ha".

Mud Gene Alky, tell us, what is your definition of a "
saved job", BLS never had one other then call it "an unverifiable concept".

Anonymous said...

8 years adding 13 Trillion in Debt and the servicing of that debt with interest payments ,,,,, Legacy.

commie said...

Facts say otherwise

Asking you to provide what those facts are will be like finding chicken teeth....The busch legacy is 9-11 and trillions in debt, unfunded war and thousands killed....now, what about a fact or two to say other wise instead of your constant unfounded bullshit.

C.H. Truth said...

The registrations removed product safety regulations and health insurance, leaving 13 million Americans without health insurance.

It doesn't leave anyone without anything, Roger.

It provides them with a choice. If they want to purchase insurance, they still can.


Are you "on something" again, Roger?
You know, due to that back pain?
Or are you just this stupid sober?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I'm not on something. But it will be taking effect soon, I hope. But unlike you, I'm coherent. Your obsession with the President and defending him from everything is obviously incoherent.

The "choice" of 13 million Americans is priced outside of their income range. But they spend in on movies, music and fast food. That's what you and the Republicans believe about modest income families.

Anonymous said...

modest income families. " Million Dollar Baby HB

Define the income range.


"I'm not on something. But it will be taking effect soon, I hope." Junkie going from one addiction to another, do you blame your low grade mud Gene's for your additions and lack of self control?

Anonymous said...

are you just this stupid sober?" ColdHeartedTruth

HB answer = "I'm not on something."

OMG, does he know how stupid he is?

commie said...

It doesn't leave anyone without anything,

Especially those who have huge estates and incomes....nice try, CH. You want choice. Have your employer give you a choice of health insurance or the money it costs him.....how many will take the money????? I worked with idiots who put nothing into a 401k that had matching up to 6% because they couldn't afford to save.....and guess what, they were generally R's!!!!

C.H. Truth said...

Opie..

My employer always has a choice. But if he wants to be competitive and garner good employees to come work for the company, then they need to provide benefits.

You see, Opie. I have a good job, have good insurance, and make reasonably good money. That is because I am a good employee, and my services (especially at 4.1% unemployment) are desired.

C.H. Truth said...

The "choice" of 13 million Americans is priced outside of their income range.

Well then Roger...

I guess it's a good thing we don't force them to buy something priced outside of their income range.

Perhaps we should work on actually lowering health insurance costs (rather than forcing people to purchase it at the existing prices).

commie said...

My employer always has a choice.

Dayum you need a reading lesson if that is what you took away from my post......Try again before you post another load of guano that avoids my tenet.....LOLOL at you again!!!

Still looking for a fact from menstral....as predicted, crickets and crap....

C.H. Truth said...

Dayum you need a reading lesson if that is what you took away from my post..

What I took away from your post, is that you simply have no realistic bearing on how the business world actually works.

caliphate4vr said...

I worked with idiots who put nothing into a 401k that had matching up to 6% because they couldn't afford to save.....and guess what, they were generally R's!!!!

Fatty my employer contributes 10% regardless of my contribution......

Damn insurance people.....

Anonymous said...

Opium has never signed the front of a check to make a payroll. His economic,financial and business knowledge can fit in a thimble with HB's and Jane's.

Anonymous said...

I had to teach Olympic Gold Medalist in pie eating oPie the difference between realized gains and unrealized gains. Tbh, I still don't think he knows.

Loretta said...

"Or are you just this stupid sober?"

Yes.

He still has a mortgage...

Anonymous said...

At age 66 is a failure.

commie said...

KD loretta's flunky said...
I had to teach Olympic Gold Medalist in pie eating oPie

Almost as funny as you having a pig wife and realizing you are an idiot!!!

commie said...

Fatty my employer contributes 10% regardless of my contribution

Asswipe, my company offers a pension....which you will never have....Sure hope you have lots put away for your senior years.... 10% of nothing is nothing!!!!! LOLOLOL

commie said...

, is that you simply have no realistic bearing on how the business world actually works.

What I take away from your response is your inability to read or think....LOL

Anonymous said...

Today the Economic news is getting the new year off to a great start.

Utility Companies using coal, natural gas and delivering heating oil are doing a great job.

wphamilton said...

Regarding Trump executive orders cutting protections, services, degrading EPA, energy, H&HS etc. Does anyone seriously believe that those have had much impact on our current GDP and unemployment?

Quick poll, honest answer.

C.H. Truth said...

Well WP...

The only poll that matters is whether or not businesses believe that this has an impact on them, and if it should spur investment. It appears the consensus is that to the degree that it matters, it certainly provides them with some confidence to move forward.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/01/us/politics/trump-businesses-regulation-economic-growth.html?ref=todayspaper

The Business Roundtable, a corporate lobbying group in Washington, reported last month that “regulatory costs” were no longer the top concern of American executives, for the first time in six years. Mr. Zandi said that regulation was still the top concern in Moody’s survey of business confidence, but that it was rapidly losing ground to concerns about the availability of labor.

The National Association of Manufacturers’ fourth-quarter member survey found that fewer than half of manufacturers cited an “unfavorable business climate” — including regulations and taxes — as a challenge to their business, down from nearly three-quarters a year ago.

wphamilton said...

"Major companies including Cisco Systems Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Coca-Cola Co. say they’ll turn over most gains from proposed corporate tax cuts to their shareholders"

“If the tax reform bill goes through, do you plan to increase investment — your companies’ investment — capital investment,” and requests a show of hands. Only a few hands go up, leaving Cohn to ask sheepishly, “Why aren’t the other hands up?”

Video if you don't believe it.

wphamilton said...


The only poll that matters is whether or not businesses believe that this has an impact on them, and if it should spur investment. I


Well CH, you failed to show that it actually has spurred investment. People, especially CEO's, say what they want you to believe. They're always badmouthing taxes and regulations, it's meaningless. Show me the money, not talk about maybes and I-hopes.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The winner for 2018.

The special counsel

Few recent Washington, D.C., figures have had the effect of the Justice Department's special counsel Robert Mueller. He became a cult figure of hope for Trump opponents. He and his unit have been turned into political tackle dummies by Trump allies.

But through it all, Mueller and his team have themselves remained nearly silent, operating mostly out of sight within the eye of the hurricane. A federal judge has imposed a gag order on the parties in Mueller's prosecution of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and, moreover, talking directly to the press was never Mueller's style.

So his team is the subject of endless rumor and speculation — about the directions it's taking, about the people it might charge — but it has exhibited uncommon discipline in actually discussing its own actions.

The indictments it brought in 2017 came as a surprise to many people, showing that Mueller could, for example, conclude a plea agreement with former Trump campaign adviser George Papadoupolos on Oct. 5 and keep it confidential until the day it was unsealed. If that discipline persists, the guessing games will too.

Alex Wong/Getty Images
Enlarge for caption
Outside legal experts have said they believe Mueller's work might not even be halfway complete, and that, based on past large, complex cases, the investigation might last through 2018.

If that is so, and Mueller continues making life uncomfortable for White House aides and other Trumpworld insiders, talk will likely continue about possible attempts to fire him.

The president can't remove Mueller directly, but he could try to replace Attorney General Jeff Sessions or other Justice Department leaders with people who would oust Mueller. If the White House decides to go that route in 2018, it would follow extensive political groundwork laid by allies who charge the FBI is rife with "bias," Mueller has obtained evidence inappropriately and other transgressions.

Supporters in Congress want to pass laws that would protect Mueller from such a fate, but unless 2018 brings major changes in the political dynamics, those bills don't have the support of Republicans leaders and Trump certainly would not sign one.

So even though a new year is dawning, the outlook for Mueller remains as murky as ever, both in terms of his job security and whatever work he intends to accomplish.

He has the cooperation of at least one major witness, that much is sure: former national security adviser Mike Flynn, who turned state's evidence in December in exchange for leniency. As far as other interviews, lines of inquiry and more potential charges, only Mueller knows for sure.

C.H. Truth said...

Well CH, you failed to show that it actually has spurred investment. People, especially CEO's, say what they want you to believe. They're always badmouthing taxes and regulations, it's meaningless. Show me the money, not talk about maybes and I-hopes.

So are you suggesting that we have not had lower unemployment, higher wages, stronger GDP growth, better market, and higher consumer confidence?

The economic indicators are there. Business leaders are touting regulation and tax cuts as a positive. Many have already promised more investment.


I think "your" point is that it's all just a coincidence, Paul Krugman is actually correct, and that Trump's economic disaster is "just around the corner". Basically, you are the one citing opinion, while ignoring the numbers.

wphamilton said...

I didn't really intend to start an argument, but just polling opinions.

Who all honestly believes that these Trump EO have had significant economic impact in 2017? CH admits that he does, who else?

But to answer your question, I'm not suggesting *anything" about the economic indicators, let alone denying them. If you're asking me to answer my own question, then: of course not. Trump's orders have been more headwind than anything else, and an objective examination must look elsewhere.

Commonsense said...

Who all honestly believes that these Trump EO have had significant economic impact in 2017?

Anyone with an IQ in triple digits.

commie said...

Utility Companies using coal,

Coal tonnage up 8% coal mining jobs down 7,000 OOPs!!!!

Wonder how can that be???? Montana (with 942 coal miners) produces more coal than Virginia (with 5,262 coal miners). Wyoming (with 5,837 coal miners) produces more coal than West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Alabama, and Illinois combined (with a total of 58,995 coal miners).

commie said...

Anyone with an IQ in triple digits.

That certainly eliminates you, rat and loretta.....LOLOLOL!!!!

commie said...

Trump took credit for this years airline safety!!!!! What a crock of shit.....Name one thing he did to help airline safety other than flying in AF1 which can carry his fat head and ass around without COG problems....

President Donald Trump took credit for a banner year in commercial air travel, in which zero deaths were recorded, according to multiple studies.

“Since taking office I have been very strict on Commercial Aviation,” Trump tweeted Tuesday morning. “Good news - it was just reported that there were Zero deaths in 2017, the best and safest year on record!”

But CH the genius will defend that proclamation as true, like the good little sycophant he is. Can't wait to see what BS he will provide..LOL

wphamilton said...

That's 2: CS and CH believe that these Executive Orders have generically improved the economy.

I'll note that his suggested correlation is dubious given the demographics of a large portion of those opposing Trump, so please don't let that influence your response. If anyone else is thinking of answering honestly.

commie said...

7000 s/b 700 oops

Milton Freidman said...

I believe that Trump's policies have tangibly helped the economy.

Arthur Laffer said...

Trump's policies have had a positive effect on the economy.

Friedrich Hayek said...

There can be no doubt that Trump's policies have helped the economy.

Paul Krugman said...

Trump's policies will lead to a global recession and the stock market will never recover... eventually.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Trump is the biggest liar in history

Every president likes to take credit when things go well and pass along blame when they go poorly, but no president is as willing to take that pattern to its brazen extreme like Donald Trump.

Last year was a landmark in commercial aviation—the safest year since the advent of widespread passenger-jet travel. Not a single person died in commercial passenger jet crash anywhere in the world in 2017, according to an organization that tracks aviation safety. Tuesday morning, the president announced he deserved credit for that:


The president’s claim can’t withstand even slight scrutiny. The 2017 milestone is worth celebrating, but changes in statistics like air safety are achieved over long time scales, and given the small number of crashes involved, minor deviations in the number are unlikely attributable to any specific presidential action—especially one take in the just under a year Trump has been in office.



But the problems with Trump’s claim don’t end there. First, the statistic involved is crashes worldwide. American aviation has already been extremely safe. No U.S. airline has had a fatality since 2009, when a commuter turboprop crashed near Buffalo, New York, and there hasn’t been a fatal jet accident since 2006, when a plane crashed during takeoff in Lexington, Kentucky. (Foreign carriers have had fatal accidents in the United States, like the 2013 Asiana Airlines crash landing at San Francisco that killed three people.) Trump wishes to take credit for what’s happened overseas—matters both beyond the control of American power, and given the small sample size, also a product of good luck.

Second, it’s hard to find any evidence to back the president’s assertion that he has “been very strict on Commercial Aviation.” In fact, it’s hard to find any evidence that Trump has affected aviation at all. If anything, Trump has promised to loosen regulations on aviation. Meeting with airlines executives in February 2017, Trump complained of a “regulatory morass that’s a disaster” and said he’d loosen “burdensome regulations.” In June, the president proposed privatizing air-traffic control, though that idea was more related to moving jobs off the federal payroll than safety concerns. In September, responding to the president’s call for regulations to cut, an industry panel recommended the FAA scale back or eliminate dozens of safety rules.

But as with many of the president’s priorities, there’s been little actual action on this front. The administration did not report any changes to Federal Aviation Administration regulations in fiscal year 2017, which ended in September, and an FAA list doesn’t show any major new or proposed rules affecting commercial aviation during the Trump administration. The air-traffic control push stalled out amid opposition from Republicans.

The president’s tweet is, once again, circumstantial evidence of his copious television watching—his Tuesday missives closely track stories on Fox News—though he denies he consumes TV. That denial is about as credible as his claiming any credit for a safe 2017 in air travel, which is to say it’s about as ever good.

Loretta said...

"Anyone with an IQ in triple digits"

LOL. It isn't rocket science....or perhaps it is to those who buy into conspiracy theories and STILL view corporations as robber barons.

Loretta said...

"Trump is the biggest liar in history"

Says the drunken junkie creeper.

wphamilton said...

Does " It isn't rocket science." mean that you also honestly believe that Trump's executive orders have significantly spurred economic growth in 2017? Interesting.

Actually, CH didn't explicitly acknowledge that belief, but rather gave some reasoning that didn't quite work ... so, to settle my curiosity ColdHeart, yes or no?

Loretta said...

"you also honestly believe that Trump's executive orders have significantly spurred economic growth in 2017? Interesting."

What's so interesting about it?

It's obvious.

Hell, going by the numbers in my businesses alone makes it obvious to me.

wphamilton said...

Numbers really? Good, how about some specifics.

Loretta said...

You don't understand what "numbers" mean?

Do you understand bottom line?

Loretta said...

Going to son's for dinner, will check back later.

wphamilton said...

I'm asking for specifics of your quantified analysis. I was considered by locals to be something of a mathematical prodigy in HS and I have a degree in Math, so I do have a basic aptitude and understanding of it.

Yes, I've signed my share of paychecks as well. So how do "the numbers" in your business make it obvious that Trump's Executive Orders have spurred our GDP by a couple of points?

wphamilton said...

I'm also curious, assuming that you understand how corporate budgets, investment and spending works, how you interpolate your business projections (if projections are what you're referring to) into that corporate process and how you believe that was reflected in corporate investment in 2017?

Indy Voter said...

WP, I would be surprised if any Executive Orders directly contributed to growth in 2017. Same goes for regulations that were overturned. On the other hand, Trump and Congress established an expectation that government-related costs would go down (both regulatory costs and taxes) and that expectation likely did contribute to the higher growth rate.

I haven't read every back and forth on this, but it appears you are asking narrowly about the impact of the EOs and regulation changes on the rate of growth, not whether the general attitude of Trump towards regulations has impacted growth.

Anonymous said...

WP as a business owner , what business did you run?

Anonymous said...

Dear Leftist, The People of Iran have more BALLS then you do. You call Trump a dictator and Hitler, take to the streets. Over throw the Dictator.

wphamilton said...

On the other hand, Trump and Congress established an expectation that government-related costs would go down (both regulatory costs and taxes) and that expectation likely did contribute to the higher growth rate.

How? It's too soon to affect corporate capital spending or expansion. One might say "hiring" but aside from random "business owners" quoted in news I have never heard of hiring levels actually changed due to expectations from an EO's (or other policy declarations) until there were tangible fiscal impetus. Their costs of compliance didn't go down in 2017. When and if it does, some time in the future, then they will decide and it might or might not be anything that stimulates our GDP. You're mainly going to use those and related indexes to devise the budget.

So if not corporate then what? People "have more confidence" so they're buying more? Consumer confidence rose in Q1 to about the level it reached in 2015. It rose still over that through the remainder of 2017, but it's a huge leap to associate that with Trump's executive orders. More likely it was due to employment gains and the rising stock market. That's why when someone says "it's obvious" from their numbers, I want to know what those numbers are and what their reasoning is. Because I think it's anything but obvious, and in my opinion almost certainly wrong.

wphamilton said...

it appears you are asking narrowly about the impact of the EOs and regulation changes on the rate of growth,

That's the precise claim that I'm seeing here, multiple times. So I AM asking, narrowly, who among us here honestly believes that.

Loretta said...

You might have signed the front of paychecks, but since you apparently work for robber barons something tells me you weren't successful.

Promised tax cuts were enough for me to expand and invest. I've already explained what that means to companies like mine.

Tax cuts help my employees too. If they're doing well, I'm doing better. Win win.

Promises of reversing Obama's restrictive, unnecessary burdensome regulations was another reason to project better numbers for 2017.

I expect the government to get out of the way. I don't expect the government to place a bigger boot on my neck.

Loretta said...

Bottom line.

You seem perfectly comfortable reading faux liberal claims.

I have too many people depending on me to live in some alternate world.

Loretta said...

*reading and accepting at face value faux liberal claims.

Anonymous said...

Promises of reversing Obama's restrictive, unnecessary burdensome regulations was another reason to project better numbers for 2017.

I expect the government to get out of the way. I don't expect the government to place a bigger boot on my neck."

Exactly, I am lowering my cost of my families health insurance with my independent insurance broker tomorrow, she is saving us $2,300 in real dollars not faux ObamaFailedCare dollars,,, who here saw a $2,500 deduction, anyone here, surly one of us saw those dollars flow in?

I don't have the regulation over my streams, ponds and puddles or every drop of rain on my lands.

My fellow rancher/farmer is all in with this tax cut for a host of reasons.


WP, are you a business owner as you said , when you said.

"
Yes, I've signed my share of paychecks as well,: WP

Or where you talking about you cashed checks from your employeer?

Commonsense said...

TDS Liberals and establishment Washington are losers.

What We Owe Trump in 2018

The world has a renewed respect for the word of the American government and believes it will do what it says instead of drawing fake red lines.

More than anything else, President Trump has given us our voice back against the forces of political correctness. Regardless of political affiliation, we cannot deal with the issues of the day unless they are dealt with in terms of candor and truth. President Trump knows this.

Leftists mock the President for the way he speaks, for he speaks in the exact way that millions of Americans speak in their homes, workplaces, and even bars after a hard day of work. The left cannot stand this because the left looks down upon the ordinary people instead of remembering that they are, as Lincoln said, “the best kind of people. That’s why God made so many of them.”

Donald Trump was the only person who could beat Hillary Clinton; no other Republican candidate would have done so, despite Hillary’s corruption and fakeness. He also was the single candidate who could hit back against the fake media while having the ability to turn them on their heads.

Now that he is President, Donald Trump is taking on the Washington establishment like no other. It is a true case of Dave, the ordinary citizen almost instantly coming to Washington and doing great and powerful things. In this case, Dave is not a leftist and the left hates him for it. Trump is in many ways an ordinary man, but he happens to be rich and not beholden to the cocktail party crowd. Even worse for the left, the President was once, years ago, among them. Now the left hates the President so much that they long for George W. Bush, whom they called a war criminal.


There's a new sheriff in town.

commie said...

What We Owe Trump in 2018

Yep....a swift kick in his big button is all he deserves.....No need to mock him, he embarrasses the country daily with stupid tweets....His mental state like loretta, getting even like a school girl is what he does best....idiot...

Loretta said...

"from their numbers, I want to know what those numbers are"

Good luck with that. I don't share financial information.

Loretta said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

commie said...

$2,300 in real dollars

Sure swine lover.....I'm sure in your mind you also worked for a living instead of having it given to you. LOL

commie said...

Loretta said...
You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Our idiot savant returns with some brilliance.....sad how predictable trumpian you are......I'm sure you have a massive button!!!!!

Loretta said...

"There's a new sheriff in town."

Seven MORE years of President Trump, we'll have to unlock the doors of the long since closed asylums.

I can see Dennis trying to chew off his little white jacket, lol.

Loretta said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

wphamilton said...

Blogger Loretta said...
Bottom line.

Your reasoning really is that isn't it? Your business has increased, therefore "it's obvious" to you that Trump's executive orders have spurred GDP. Nothing here, move along, got it.

You might have signed the front of paychecks, but since you apparently work for robber barons something tells me you weren't successful.


You have no idea what you're talking about, no idea how successful I am, or have been in several businesses in the past, and like you I'm not about to share here.

wphamilton said...

Promised tax cuts were enough for me to expand and invest. I've already explained what that means to companies like mine.

Which executive order was that?

Tax cuts help my employees too. If they're doing well, I'm doing better. Win win.

Obviously we all like tax cuts. Haven't seen any money from tax cuts yet though, and it wasn't signed into law until a few weeks ago, so that hardly accounts for rising GDP and employment. Very few business people make business decisions based on a "promise" of a tax cut - or any other politician's promises for that matter. Those who would, would fail more often than not. They make business decisions based on their business, finances and goals.

commie said...

Loretta said...

I can see Dennis trying to chew off his little white jacket, lol.

Your childish stupidity is only exceeded by your arrogance....Typical of the insecure.....LOL

Loretta said...

"no idea how successful I am, or have been in several businesses in the past, and like you I'm not about to share here."

You re right.

I've just never seen a financially successful business person compare today's corporations to the robber barons of yesteryear.

Loretta said...

"Very few business people make business decisions based on a "promise" of a tax cut - or any other politician's promises for that matter."

This statement also raises eyebrows.

Just what do you think projections are based on?

We do several taxation scenarios....as do most most business people.

I GAVE you my example of signed executive orders. Don't get huffy because you ignored it.

wphamilton said...

But you HAVE seen them explain that the Robber Barons are why regulations are necessary. At least, from the educated business people.

Just what do you think projections are based on?

I've never heard of a successful business who based projections on a campaign promise.

I GAVE you my example of signed executive orders.

EO for the tax cut that expanded your business? I don't think so.

C.H. Truth said...

At least, from the educated business people.

You mean like those who have Harvard Business School MBAs or degrees in economics from Wharton?

My guess, WP... is you are suggesting we listen to academics, and political journalists. People like Paul Krugman, who once won a Nobel Prize in economics for being wrong. Or a community organizer, who had a law degree.

I suspect that you have no real interest in what actual business people with business experience and business educations have to say. Those who actually have to make the tough calls on investment and hiring.

Loretta said...

"reversing Obama's restrictive, unnecessary burdensome regulations was another reason to project better numbers for 2017.

I expect the government to get out of the way. I don't expect the government to place a bigger boot on my neck."


"I've never heard of a successful business who based projections on a campaign promise."

"I've never heard of a successful business who based projections on a campaign promise."

Nice try.

THIS is what I said...

"We do several taxation scenarios....as do most most business people."

I should have said...

As do most successful business people.

wphamilton said...

CH, you actually believe that reform, laws and regulations, were NOT necessary due to the practices of the so-called Robber Barons at the turn of the 20th? That the only people who accept that are "academics, and political journalists"? That's kind of amazing.

I suspect that you have no real interest in what actual business people with business experience and business educations have to say. Those who actually have to make the tough calls on investment and hiring.

Why don't you "suspect" that my interest is what I directly asked you? Which you still haven't answered by the way. Why is that?

Do YOU honestly believe that Trump's Executive Orders in 2017 have stimulated the economy for an extra 2-3% growth in GDP? It should be an easy question to answer without resorting to deprecation of academics and liberals, without invoking Krugman. Just your own opinion or belief.

wphamilton said...

"We do several taxation scenarios....as do most most business people."

None of your taxation scenarios played out in 2017, and you know that of course, so you made no projection for 2017 expenses based on those promises. You might have anticipated lower taxes in 2018, and plan for that, but you've often indicated here that you base your hiring and wages on current tax rates and current business environment. I'm pretty confident that you wouldn't reallocate or leverage capital resources a year in advance based on a politician's promises. You, or any decent businessman, want to see what's actually happening with revenue, taxes, expenses and costs and so on, not promises.

Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs is what comes to mind, the closest thing to "slashing Obama era regulations" or however you phrased it. It's the nearest thing to "promises" in his Executive Orders as well. It kills two "regulations" for every "new regulation".

Have you identified ANY regulations that will be on the chopping block from this order, that currently costs you in your own business? Have you identified even any LIKELY ones? Does compliance with federal regulations even cost you anything at all, in your specific business? Or do you just in general expect there to be more money, more business, because other businesses will have fewer regulations?

C.H. Truth said...

CH, you actually believe that reform, laws and regulations, were NOT necessary due to the practices of the so-called Robber Barons at the turn of the 20th? That the only people who accept that are "academics, and political journalists"? That's kind of amazing.

I don't believe anyone serious would believe that imposing 21st century regulations because of 19th century practices is a good idea. But I do believe that there are some unserious academics who might believe so, including people who got their economic experience from community organizing and a law degree.


But to get to the heart of your question.

I firmly believe that if Hillary Clinton had been elected President, that the Market would be closer to 20,000 than 25,000. My house would not be worth 20% more than I paid for it a few years back. Retail sales would not have had the year it had. Manufacturing industry would have continued to decrease. The economy would still be rolling along at an approximate 2% GDP growth, and that people like Paul Krugman would still be arguing that 3% growth is unobtainable.

Loretta said...

"None of your taxation scenarios played out in 2017, and you know that of course, so you made no projection for 2017 expenses based on those promises."

Republicans always lower taxes. I'll get a sizeable refund for 2017.

Trump signed the executive order reversing Obama's restrictive regulations on Jan 30th, so there's that.

While YOU might not fully understand how business decisions are made or changed, I've been doing this for 25 years and know to bend over when a liberal Democrat gets elected.

Loretta said...

"But to get to the heart of your question."

Bitter TDS.

wphamilton said...

"I don't believe anyone serious would believe that imposing 21st century regulations because of 19th century practices is a good idea."

Anti-trust is NOT relevant in the 21st Century? No reason to be concerned about exploiting workers? I'd pretend to be shocked, but when I cited also the current abuses of Chinese businesses it was anticipating this syncopated argument.

But to get to the heart of your question.

I firmly believe that if Hillary Clinton had been elected President,


I might agree with that, but it's not anywhere in the vicinity of my question. Why can't you answer?

wphamilton said...

Trump signed the executive order reversing Obama's restrictive regulations on Jan 30th, so there's that.

Why did I bother citing that, linking to it, and asking specific questions about it if you don't even read it?

How many regulations have been removed under that 2-1 rule in the 11 months since?

Loretta said...

Don't know.

Don't care.

wphamilton said...

I've been doing this for 25 years and know to bend over when a liberal Democrat gets elected.

You're just venting, since you haven't brought up a single Obama era regulation that had any compliance cost to your business. Venting's OK, but the fact that you have no answer doesn't make my question ignorant.

wphamilton said...

Republicans always lower taxes. I'll get a sizeable refund for 2017.

Not from a Trump/Republican tax cut.

Anonymous said...

Really, WP, what business did/do you own?

Anonymous said...

US Construction Spending hit ALL TIME HIGH.

Loretta said...

"Not from a Trump/Republican tax cut."

The hell if I won't.

C.H. Truth said...

I might agree with that, but it's not anywhere in the vicinity of my question. Why can't you answer?

Actually it's as good of an answer as you should expect.

Based on the fact that Donald Trump is President, the promises of regulation cuts, along with the promise that businesses will not see new regulations, along with the lowering of taxes, and the basic understanding that Trump will be "pro-business" has spurred the economy. There simply cannot be a valid denial of this.

Whether or not this motivation can be drawn "specifically" to individual regulation cuts or individual policies is irrelevant. Sometimes things are just what they are because that is how people perceive them to be.


Is a specific matter of individual physical talent and an ability of Tom Brady to do things others cannot that makes him a great quarterback? Or is there an intangible confidence that players get from being around him, understanding his past success, and being able to feel like they can always win when he is behind center? Do doubt, it's as much the latter as it is the former... but trying to quantify the tangible from the intangible is really irrelevant to his success.

wphamilton said...

CH yeh it's as good a non-answer as I expect, because we both know that you'd have to agree with me were you to answer honestly, and you don't want to risk giving me a dumb dishonest answer. You don't believe any more than I or Indy do that Trump's executive orders have spurred economic growth 2-3% in 2017.

Loretta, both the federal budget and the tax rules for 2017 are from Obama's term. When you're bragging about your big return in tax 2017, you're thanking Obama, not Trump

Anonymous said...

Wp, so kray kray

Anonymous said...

Will fly over WP head

Anonymous said...

Again, in 8 years Obimbo never put up these kinds of Economic numbers. But, but, but, now in year 9 of his term obimbo is knocking it stiff (( cough cough)).

wphamilton said...

Is a specific matter of individual physical talent and an ability of Tom Brady to do things others cannot that makes him a great quarterback? Or is there an intangible confidence that players get from being around him, understanding his past success, and being able to feel like they can always win when he is behind center?

You're nuts if you don't think that Tom Brady has world class elite physical talents. The rest is baloney, because his teammates are professionals and they would perform as well for another elite, winning quarterback.

In the same way, perception is NOT reality for the economy. I'm a huge believer in consumer confidence as an economic indicator, but I don't think for a second that either, A, consumer confidence is driven primarily by this President nor any President, nor B, that consumer confidence can drive a strong economic expansion. It is "opinion", not reality.

Anonymous said...

Now Tom Brady is nut'n special. Off the rails cray cray.

Anonymous said...

What in your learned opinion moves the Economy, since you discounted bigger take home pay. Businesses, any pres. Any Election and peanut butter.

C.H. Truth said...

Basically WP...

You are twisting what I stated. It's the totality of Trump's collective actions that spurs economic confidence, not any one or two specific actions.

Just as it's the totality of Tom Brady that makes him a great quarterback. He doesn't have the arm strength of some QBs, or mobility to run like many, and he isn't 6'5 and 250. You don't ask people to define one or two physical qualities that makes him a great QB, and then lacking those definitions, declare him to be average.

Ultimately the economy has been spurred by Trump being President and there can really be no disputing that. I don't just believe that, WP. It simply is the reality.

Your argument "appears" to be that you believe business leaders and the investment class are being irrational for their behavior in making investments and pushing market prices. That they are somehow misguided because nobody would be able to point specifically to one or two actions by Trump.

You seek to reinforce your belief by trying to get Roger and Opie to agree with you. It's sort of silly, when you think about it.



Anonymous said...

Ette asked WP


You don't understand what "numbers" mean?

Do you understand bottom line?

January 2, 2018 at 6:24 PM"




WP Response.

Yes, I've signed my share of paychecks as well. So how do "the numbers" in your business make it obvious that Trump's Executive Orders have spurred our GDP by a couple of points?" WP

What business did you or do you currently run that you sign payroll check, other then the ones your employer pays to you?

commie said...

CH the seer posted

You seek to reinforce your belief by trying to get Roger and Opie to agree with you

HORSESHOE!!! WP has a brain and a lot of what he posts is logical, unlike your complete swallowing of trumps manhood. Stop speaking for me...I don't hold the same beliefs as you and believe me, you are the last person I would ask to support my thoughts.

Anonymous said...

By Charles Krauthammer

I do not understand how living in a country with its democracy established over 200 years ago, and now, for the first time in history, suddenly we have one of our former presidents set up a group called "Organizing for Action" (OFA).
OFA is 30,000+ strong and working to disrupt everything that our current president’s administration is trying to do. This organization goes against our Democracy, and it is an operation that will destroy our way of governing. It goes against our Constitution, our laws, and the processes established over 200 years ago. If it is allowed to proceed then we will be living in chaos very much like third world countries are run. What good is it to have an established government if it is not going to be respected and allowed to follow our laws?

If you had an army some 30,000 strong and a court system stacked over the decades with judges who would allow you to break the laws, how much damage could you do to a country? We are about to find out in America!

Our ex-president said he was going to stay involved through community organizing and speak out on the issues and that appears to be one post-administration promise he intends to keep. He has moved many of his administration's top dogs over to Organizing for Action.

OFA is behind the strategic and tactical implementation of the resistance to the Trump Administration that we are seeing across America, and politically active courts are providing the leverage for this revolution.

OFA is dedicated to organizing communities for "progressive" change. Its issues are gun control, socialist healthcare, abortion, sexual equality, climate change, and of course, immigration reform.

OFA members were propped up by the ex-president's message from the shadows: "Organizing is the building block of everything great we have accomplished Organizers around the country are fighting for change in their communities and OFA is one of the groups on the front lines. Commit to this work in 2017 and beyond."

OFA's website says it obtained its "digital" assets from the ex-president's re-election effort and that he inspired the movement. In short, it is the shadow government organization aimed at resisting and tearing down the Constitutional Republic we know as AMERICA.

Paul Sperry, writing for the New York Post, says, “The OFA will fight President Donald Trump at every turn of his presidency and the ex-president will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House."

Sperry writes that, “The ex-president is setting up a shadow government to sabotage the Trump administration through a network of non-profits led by OFA, which is growing its war chest (more than $40 million) and has some 250 offices nationwide. The OFA IRS filings, according to Sperry, indicate that the OFA has 32,525 (and growing) volunteers nationwide. The ex-president and his wife will oversee the operation from their home/ office in Washington DC.

Think about how this works.. For example: Trump issues an immigration executive order; the OFA signals for protests and statements from pro-immigrant groups; the ACLU lawyers file lawsuits in jurisdictions where activist judges obstruct the laws; volunteers are called to protest at airports and Congressional town hall meetings; the leftist media springs to action in support of these activities; the twitter sphere lights up with social media; and violence follows. All of this happens from the ex-president's signal that he is heartened by the protests.

If Barack Obama did not do enough to destroy this country in the 8 years he was in office, it appears his future plans are to destroy the foundation on which this country has operated on for the last 241 years.

If this does not scare you, then we are in worse trouble than you know.

wphamilton said...


Your argument "appears" to be that you believe business leaders and the investment class are being irrational for their behavior in making investments and pushing market prices


Nope. Your reasoning for their behavior and consumer behavior is irrational. My argument, observation is more accurate, doesn't "appear" to be anything other than as I've plainly stated. It is that Trumps Executive Orders have nothing to do with 2 or 3% GDP growth, and even less to do with nebulous "confidence" in Trump. For one thing, Presidents don't have that control over the economy, and EO's the least of their economic tools. For another, the EO's Trump has signed are mostly a hindrance so a rational actor who mistakenly thought that Presidents control economic growth would be more concerned than optimistic. And finally no one has confidence in Trump beyond an ever-shrinking number of hard-core "appearance is reality" types, which by definition is irrational.

Anonymous said...

The Problem with the left is not the economy booming, or that we have kicked the shit out of ISIS , it is more basic then that, it is TRUMP WON.

After a year the Hillary Resistance movement can't let go.

commie said...

ago, and now, for the first time in history, suddenly we have one of our former presidents set up a group called "Organizing for Action"

Once again, KD the idiot posts an an abject lie. Typical of swill drinkers..

Anonymous said...

Job Cuts lowest since 1990, again taking an eraser to what little there is left to the orphan known as Obamanomics.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

We aren’t the first to fight for progressive change and we won’t be the last." OFA website front page

commies said...

The delusional idiot of kansas posted

again taking an eraser to what little there is left to the orphan known as Obamanomics.

Thanx to Obama, having left behind a thriving economy and jobs market, trump and you take credit where none is due. Other than giving the elite and corporations free money which they will not invest in anything but stock buy backs, trump has done nothing and is now fighting the entire R party as rats are starting to leave the sinking ship....LOLOL

C.H. Truth said...

Actually Presidents do have an impact on the economy.

As I stated (and you generally agreed)... had Hillary been elected, rather than Trump... our economy would very likely be much different. The markets would be lower, GDP growth would be lower, consumer confidence would be lower.

You've seen tangible behavior from companies that have specifically acted because of actions. How many companies gave out year end bonuses because of the tax cuts? How many companies vowed to invest. Even the European economists believe that these actions will push international investment out of the E.U. and to the U.S.

The argument from the left appears to be that because not "all" companies will use tax breaks to expand, invest, or hire... that tax breaks will not help the economy. But the only way to logically argue that tax breaks will not help the economy is to argue that "none" of the companies will do so. Whether it is 75% or 50% or 25% - any percentage of companies that decide to invest because of an economic policy (or collective policies) helps the economy.

Same can be said about executive actions that undo restrictions and regulations. Something as simple as speeding up the process to get building plans approved will help spur the economy. Reducing the amount of red tape that goes alone with new investment will prompt more new investment. Allowing businesses to make "business decisions" rather than be tied down to burdenous regulations that don't put "business" first helps businesses. It doesn't take "all businesses" to benefit. It only takes some of the businesses to help spur the economy. The more regulations that hindered businesses that are revoked, the more businesses are ultimately helped.

Your argument simply doesn't hold up to reality.

commie said...

Those millions and millions of illegal votes seems to have be the trump fantasy of the year and now going away....Next boast, mexico will pay for the wall promise will melt away.......I'm sure those that support it will think additional billions to the deficit is just fine....

Trump Dissolves His Panel Investigating 2016 Election Fraud
By MICHAEL TACKETT and MICHAEL WINES 6:39 AM ET
President Trump signed an executive order to disband the commission, ending its inquiry into his false claims of voter fraud. He said the decision came after several states refused to turn over data.

commie said...

Actually Presidents do have an impact on the economy.

That is certainly a change of your philosophy from obamas reign.....

commie said...

KD the moron of kansas posted

After a year the Hillary Resistance movement can't let go.

Seems she lost over a year ago and you and trump still obsess over her....she's out of the picture.....let it go, idiot....

C.H. Truth said...

Opie...

I have always argued that policies have effect on the economy. Sometimes people confuse policies with who is in office.

Trump has an impact on the economy both because of policies he has enacted or repealed, but also on the knowledge that he will not enact new regulations that might hamper business investment. Some of it is tangible, some of it is psychological.


President Clinton was very much a pro-business style President in his second term, cutting capital gains (from 28% to 20%), creating estate tax exemptions, welfare reform, etc... his second term economic growth increased to over 4% GDP on average.

His first four years (after raising some taxes, and behaving like a more traditional liberal) saw less growth and a shellacking at the ballot box in 1994.

Ultimately it was policy (rather than the fact that a Democratic President sat in the White House) that spurred the economy. Policy matters. Having a President with pro-business policy goals is going to help business leaders be more confident in investment and hiring.

Loretta said...

I would have taken Willie Jeff and his well-placed cigar over Obama any damn day.

Anonymous said...

First time Unemployment filers dropped in 2017, to a level not seen during the Lost Years.

Coal fired Electric Generation on east coast report Record Demand. And those utility companies have responded and are delivering.

Solar, declined in output, too cloudy, too snowy.

wphamilton said...

The argument from the left appears to be that because not "all" companies will use tax breaks to expand, invest, or hire... that tax breaks will not help the economy. But the only way to logically argue that tax breaks will not help the economy is to argue that "none" of the companies will do so.

Posing a silly position to argue against it.

In the first place, there's hardly anyone out there, "from the left" or otherwise, who think that general tax breaks won't help the economy in the short term. Dispensing with your "appears to be" argument.

Secondly no one gives a flying flip whether "all" or "none" of the companies spend their windfalls on hiring or dividends or something else. So much for the second "appears to be" argument.

Let's stick to reality. What, specifically, are the "tax breaks" that you're talking about for 2017, that you imply have had such great effect? Lorretta was talking about her "big 2017 tax return, thanks Trump", and you're agreeing with her, so what exactly is that? The 50$ increase in the standard deduction?

The reality is, there hasn't been a tax break in 2017. There has been no help to businesses, including Loretta's, in 2017 from Trump tax breaks. You can stand on railroad tracks that to you "appear to be" unicorn trails, but that train will always prove what reality doesn't care.

So you argue that just the anticipation of tax cuts in the future spurred hiring, investment and expansion in 2017, to the tune of 2-3% extra growth of the GDP. That would be an argument from "perception", but an argument from reality starts with facts. Where was the growth in GDP? How MUCH corporate expansion and spending went on in 2017? Get the baseline facts right first, and then look at reasons. When was that expansion (if indeed there was any) planned, and what spurred it?

I'll start: what sector added value to the GDP in 2017, more than in 2016? Private goods. The Private Goods increase is mainly attributable to motor vehicles. The increase in consumer services spending was in health care and financial services.

The growth in real gross output by industry? Mining. Followed distantly by entertainment and recreation.

What was the capital spending in business? Purchasing equipment and intellectual property (ie, buying up other businesses), in wholesale trade and manufacturing.

So if you truly want a fact-based examination, rather than a "perception is reality" one, we can ascertain several things right from the start. First, tax breaks have had nothing to do with it. Second, increased consumer spending on private goods (automobiles), health care and financial services was the big driver, manufacturing industry replacing old equipment, and a record increase in mining (coal).

Aha, Trump is the coal "Booster in Chief"! But before we get too enthusiastic about imagining Trump's cheerleading pulling up coal mining, the reality is that this record increase comes on the heels of a record drop in 2016. Secondly, that increase was due to "changes in U.S. energy markets and India's continued push to provide electricity to more of its poor", and Trump's impact was at most a minor one according to industry experts. Furthermore, the resurgence of coal is expected to prove temporary, with bleak long term prospects.

The most striking thing about the above reality-based facts about the GDP growth in 2017 is the conspicuous absence of the impact of Trump's executive orders, and the lack of anything at all related to anyone's confidence in Trump.

Anonymous said...

Lol, hardly anyone on the left was against the tax cuts,WP..

Just ever US Democrat Senator and Every US House Representative.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

The corporate tax rate cuts were an example of how policy can help the economy. It was not a literal argument as to why we saw faster growth, rising markets, and job growth in 2017.

For all of that, I thought I was crystal clear that business leaders decided to invest, hire new people, etc... based on both the reality that regulations were being cut, and by the knowledge that they no longer had to worry about what "new" regulation would be coming around the bend.

I am also quite sure that the knowledge that the GOP and Trump were working on a corporate tax decrease, didn't harm the economy in 2017.

In large part, business leaders see a pro-business President... replacing a President who was much more pro-environment and pro-regulation.

We can argue whether we should prefer President to be more pro-business or more pro-environment & pro-regulation... but it's downright intellectually dishonest to suggest that the economy isn't going to react differently to each leadership style.

wphamilton said...

For all of that, I thought I was crystal clear that business leaders decided to invest, hire new people, etc... based on both the reality that regulations were being cut,

Again, this runs headlong into reality. You "perceive" this to be true, but sticking to facts: which regulations in reality were cut due to the executive order, that impacted their decisions? Do business leaders actually know (or even believe) that your perception here that "regulations were being cut"? Bearing in mind that the only regulations they're concerned about are those which specifically impact their business.

"Economically significant" regulations are those with have an overall projected impact (Budget Office) of $100 million, cost or sometimes reduction. I asked this before, and it should be a softball for anyone making your argument about "regulations cut": How many economically significant regulations were cut (in reality) by this executive order? Which ones affected their hiring, investment etc? Nobody took a swing at this - I know the answer, but since no one is interested in the actual fact which settles that question, I'm not even going into it.

What about your argument itself? It is clear, since the GDP growth was in fact due mainly to consumer spending, mining, and the manufacturing segment replacing old equipment, that your supposition fails on the face of it. Therefore the GDP growth wasn't due to how "business leaders see a pro-business President" nor about ANY of their opinions about the President.

Anonymous said...

Republicans WINS in Virginia.

C.H. Truth said...

which regulations in reality were cut due to the executive order, that impacted their decisions? Do business leaders actually know (or even believe) that your perception here that "regulations were being cut"? Bearing in mind that the only regulations they're concerned about are those which specifically impact their business.

You act as if every business leader lives in some generic business world where they all have the same generic business needs and business problems.

The fact is that not all regulations impact all businesses. nor are they designed to. You demanding that there is some sort of generic E.O. that can be held up as the "reason" for all economic activity is quite obviously a simpleton view point... one that I assume you are not really dumb enough to believe.

Trump overturned existing hundreds of regulations, prevented hundreds of other lame duck Obama regulations from taking place. Overall, it is estimated that Trump either overturned or prevented from taking place over a 1000 different rules or regulations.

A former CBO director projected that Obama era regulations imposed a "cumulative burden" of nearly $900 billion in compliance costs to businesses.

Are you "really" suggesting that we should be able to point to one or two of these 1000 or so regulations and determine that those were the ones that spurred businesses?

Assuming that each of these regulations effected just 100 business, that would mean that 100,000 businesses were financially unburdened by Trump executive actions on rules and regulations... allowing them to either make more profit, make more investment, hire more people, or even give raises.

So, you see WP... it's a cumulative deal. A matter of numbers. I suspect that nobody can really put these 1000 regulations into any significant order of how much they may have (or potentially would have) hampered businesses. But they each had some negative effect.

wphamilton said...

The fact is that not all regulations impact all businesses. nor are they designed to. You demanding that there is some sort of generic E.O.

Wrong. I specified the EO, described it, and provided a link to it. The one in question is the notorious "two for one" regulation reduction order.

As for other more specific orders, I have asked you repeatedly to cite them, or even just one, to support the extraordinary claim that Trump's executive orders have spurred growth. You have failed to do so, and even here generalize inexcusably, all while berating MY lack of mind-reading skills.

If you claim his orders, or any one of them, or several cumulatively, have resulted in this vast economic effect, then it's up to you to be specific. If you can't even list them, then we all know that you're blowing smoke.

commie said...

hardly anyone on the left was against the tax cuts,WP..

So KD, like CH speaks for the entire left as he makes up his own version of fake news...what a joke you are...

commie said...

The argument from the left appears to be that because not "all" companies will use tax breaks to expand

The fact that the CEO's of many major blue chip corporations have stated they will buy back stock and not capitalize is not an argument from the left, it on the record.....IOW's trumps premise of economic growth because companies will expand is just that a premise unfounded in reality....No amount of your vain spin can change that, oh great omnipotent one.

wphamilton said...

but it's downright intellectually dishonest to suggest that the economy isn't going to react differently to each leadership style.

Why, because that's your opinion, and anyone who disagrees must be intellectually dishonest™?

The economy reacts rationally to the various economic forces, including but not limited to factors related to resources, means of production, inflation, available capital, expenses ... but NOT including the "leadership style" of a President. I am vicariously embarrassed for you, that you'd even write that on your own blog.

Anonymous said...

A couple of drunks talk about dirt on Clinton is Collusion.

CLINTON/FBI paying for A Fake dossier from the Russians, is just good opposition tesearch.

Anonymous said...

DOPIE, please do attempt to keep up, what you said, I said, was really WP.

wphamilton said...

The fact that the CEO's of many major blue chip corporations have stated they will buy back stock and not capitalize is not an argument from the left, it on the record

Mny of these corporations are sitting on huge cash reserves, not using that money to expand. Not for investment, not for new hires. One has to wonder how the simplistic "lower tax = more corporate spending" reconciles that fact. The tax break, adding to that stockpile of cash, is somehow more intoxicating than all the other cash? It just magically migrates away from all the other cash?

The fundamental idea behind all this is that even if the policy is economically unsound, even if it has no factual basis, and even if the available evidence contradicts it, none of that matters because the "perception" of "business leaders" drives economic growth. It's magical thinking.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

How about his memorandum which fast tracked the American pipelines being built? That certainly created jobs and had a positive economic impact.

A classic example of priorities... one President took an economic side to the pipelines, while the other took the environmental side of the pipelines.

But citing one order that made a difference still isn't really the point.

Everyone of those 1000 regulations and rules that were overturned or prevented from taking effect had some negative economic impact. Some may have had a large (and obvious) impact, others a small impact.

The previous President put those economic hindrances behind environmental and other priorities. Now, again... we can argue which President is right or wrong, and whether or not economic concerns should Trump environmental concerns or visa versa.

But what you cannot do... is claim somehow that this change in priority, which places economic concerns ahead of other concerns does not have a positive impact on the economy.

C.H. Truth said...

Many of these corporations are sitting on huge cash reserves, not using that money to expand. Not for investment, not for new hires.

Again... unless "none" of the corporations are going to use the extra money to expand, invest, or hire... that argument is irrelevant. Nobody suggests that "every" business will use money to expand. Some will use it to increase profits and reinforce the value of their company... and there is economic value in that as well, as it creates wealth for stockholders, investors, and any employee in the company that might have profit sharing, etc.

Not to mention, the fact that even European economists believe that our corporate tax cuts will spur international investment back into America. So it's not just about existing company investment... it's about spurring new investment as well.

Anonymous said...

Bookmarked Dopie, January 4,2018 @ 12.19.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Spurred by the Trump tax cuts. Home Depot is going to buyback $15 Billion in stock in 2018. They made this announcement in Dec 2017.

In 2017 home depot bought back $8 billion in stock.

Will this help the 4 blind liberal mice see?

wphamilton said...

Again... unless "none" of the corporations are going to use the extra money to expand, invest, or hire... that argument is irrelevant.

As in .0001% of the companies are using extra tax cash to expand, which is .0000001% of that GDP growth? Get real CH. No one but your straw man thinks highly of this "none of them" argument.

Many companies are sitting on literally billions of cash reserves. We'll add more to that (yippee!) and the question is, how do you expect that to stimulate the economy? If they don't spend it?

Even KD sees at least one point of it, though he misunderstands it. Home Depot buying back stock. Which obviously doesn't come from the tax break, and doesn't help the economy except for the stock holders. Why do you think the tax break cash will gravitate away from stock buybacks and CEO bonuses in 2018, when extra cash didn't do that in 2017?

Anonymous said...

You ran/run what company WP?

Anonymous said...

WP, you are not that stupid, stop it.

Sitting on Billions in cash. "Like in a mattress" spoof Hillary Clinton.

The "cash" is invested in stocks , bonds, CD, or in bank accounts. Stimulate the Economy, Bigly, how, well the money in the banks is a Deposit. Deposits are need to make loans, loans are made to consumers, consumers buy homes, cars, recently vehicles and more.

ECON101.

Anonymous said...

WP, I said the cash tax cuts are moving into stock buy backs in an increasing way in 2018.

commie said...

How about his memorandum which fast tracked the American pipelines being built?

You use the word pipelines.....how many and which ones???? I am familiar with the keystone which provided some temporary construction jobs and its net long term job creation in the hundreds, the thousands he promised IOW's another big yawn!!!. Come on, your rewriting of history is getting rather desperate CH....as to the environmental impacts on the canadian boreal forests may never be repaired as none of those resources will be used in this country to diminish our dependence on the ME and others...

commie said...

loans are made to consumers, consumers

Consumers don't hire people or create products Corporations are making low risk money while adding nothing to the GDP other than loans to others. Trump promised massive job growth with the corporate tax breaks, that just ain't gonna happen. With virtually full employment, who is going to fill these millions of jobs? Immigrants from mexico????? LOL

wphamilton said...

Anonymous commie said...With virtually full employment, who is going to fill these millions of jobs?

Between underemployed and the employable people who gave up there is still a large pool to draw from. We really do need some massive job growth, and I'd love to see that as the foundation for GDP growth rather than consumer financial services, rising health care costs, and automobile purchases.

wphamilton said...

Blogger KD said...
WP, I said the cash tax cuts are moving into stock buy backs in an increasing way in 2018.


Yes, and that's one thing that CH will deny until he's blue in the face. The claim that companies will just use the tax cuts in stock buybacks is one of the criticisms of the tax package, and contrary to the rosy predictions of the Republicans who forced it through.

Everyone including Trump's Administration would rather see that money put to productive use.