How messed up are Trump Supporters?

[Pat Mustard]

May I remind people that immediate numbers on GDP are grossly innacurate, so much so that if a reported 4.2% growth (annualised or otherwise) is stated for the immediate prior period, knocking off the 4 will give you a more accuare figure.

That 4% is the standard error on immediate GDP guesses, or it would be if the error were standardly distributed. It is not, the vast majority of estimates are over and 4% is the average over estimate.

[Angrboda]

[Angrboda]

Senator Jeff Flake ( R-Arizona) speaks out:



Full story, here.

Of course, it wasn’t the first time the president has so diminished himself. But this particular slander was leveled at the attorney general for having the temerity to prosecute members of Congress who happen to also belong to the president’s political party.

That’s right. The president attacked Mr. Sessions, by name, for refusing to cover up allegations of Republican misconduct. The president’s concern was not for justice, but for the political fortunes of the accused, because their congressional seats might now be at risk of falling to Democrats.

In doing this, the president is projecting a vision onto the system of American justice that is both bizarre and, more important, destructive.

Of course the only truly shocking thing about this statement from the president is that given what all of us have become accustomed to during this presidency, or even worse, have become numb to, this twitter eruption was not at all surprising. This numb acceptance is an appalling statement on the very real threat to our democratic institutions, Mr. president.

At this point, it might be too late for tutorials to the American justice system. But it certainly bears repeating that in order for justice to truly be served, justice must be based in empirical truth, and must be absolutely carried out absolutely independent of politics. Period.

No president, any president, administers the justice system in America, any more than he or she decrees what is objective truth. In this country, justice and truth operate quite independent of the dictates of even the most powerful of offices.

The reasons for this point are obvious to most, but we know by now that this particular president seems to have a profound unease with both justice and truth, and so has been at unrelenting war with both, virtually since the moment he swore the oath.

Not because there is any deficiency in justice or truth that requires his intervention, mind you, but for other less noble reasons.

The president seems to think that the office confers on him the ability to decide who and what gets investigated in these United States and who and what does not. Weekly, it seems, this president has been threatening to “get involved’ in the functions of the Justice Department, sometimes intimidating, sometimes plainly threatening to corrupt the independence of justice in America.

He has overtly expressed a desire for his political opponents to be investigated. And almost two years into his presidency, he presides over boisterous rallies where the last election is relitigated. And chants of “lock her up” fill the halls. None of this is normal, or acceptable. But it is not mere recklessness.

It seems to be a deliberate program by which he intends to weaken the institution of American justice, threaten its independence and perhaps set the stage for some future assault on it: the firing of the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, and perhaps even the special counsel.

It has been said that the president deserves to have an attorney general of his choice, a top lawyer with whom he is compatible. This is true. The president’s appointment powers are clear, and all of his appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. But what no president deserves is a top lawyer who is simply there to do his bidding. The attorney general is not the president’s personal lawyer. And his job is not to protect the president from damaging facts, or to turn the power of American justice onto the president’s enemies.

Or to direct Justice Department investigations in any way that is either politically motivated or presupposes guilt or innocence, or favors any outcome whatsoever, other than that which is supported by the evidence and truth.

The attorney general’s job description, as tweeted by the president last week, bears scant resemblance to the attorney general’s job in a constitutional democracy.

And so I rise today because the framers gave us, the Article 1 branch of this government that they conceived, the responsibility to curb such reckless behavior. Thus far, I believe, that we’ve been all so incredulous at the daily excess — and ever hopeful, hopeful beyond any reason, that this president would at least begin to inhabit the office in a more responsible fashion – that we have been somewhat uncertain what to do.

First and foremost, we must speak out. We cannot be quiet when the moment requires us to stand up for the democratic norms under which this system functions and without which this system ceases to function.

The president has repeatedly and over time breached these norms. If we say nothing then we become accomplices in the destruction of these democratic norms. The United States Senate is not the place to come for deniability. We must do what we can to curb the destructive impulses of this White House.

We must encourage the administration of justice. That means voicing our support for Mr. Mueller and his team. We’ve passed bipartisan legislation out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, legislation to protect the special counsel. I call on the majority leader to bring this legislation to the Senate floor.

We must also say in no uncertain terms that to call this investigation a ‘witch hunt’ is wrong. To call Mr. Mueller’s [team] thugs is wrong. Relentlessly slandering the attorney general of the United States is wrong. It is a travesty, and it is unbecoming of the office of the presidency.

And I would say to the attorney general: Stand firm. You’ve spent your life in public service, in the service of your country.

At the risk of being presumptuous I would say that these days, right now, during this crucial period when we have a president who in a malign fashion is actively testing the limits of power in the administration of American justice and in the independence of American justice, while your determination to safeguard the independence of Justice Department at the time that you have been under assault by the president, has verged on heroic.

In your long career, you will render no more consequential service to your country: Stand firm, Attorney General Sessions.

I appeal to the leadership of this body to speak out. You don’t have to speak out at every twitter outburst. But when the president calls on the Department of Justice to act as an arm of the Republican Party, then the leaders of the Republican Party in this body need to stand and say that the president is out of bounds.

Mr. President, we all have our pulls to conscience. Most recently, for me, I hear the whisper so well described a few weeks ago. The whisper over my shoulder that says: “We are better than this. America is better than this.” [This is a clear reference to the feelings of the late John McCain about Trump’s conduct in office.]

In a time of rank tribalism, Mr. President, we need to remember that we are all Americans. That is our only tribe. It is to the rule of law and the ideals of our founding that we owe our allegiance. I yield the floor.

[Angrboda]

Why China could withstand the trade war far longer than Trump thinks

President Trump insisted Thursday that he was “under no pressure to make a deal with China,” signaling a readiness to escalate his trade war with Beijing.

“They are under pressure to make a deal with us,” Trump tweeted in reference to China. “Our markets are surging, theirs are collapsing.”

The president’s statement sought to downplay any hope that the United States would extend a hand toward reconciling the trade conflict, amid word that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had invited Chinese officials to return to talks.

Trump’s view that the Chinese are suffering while the U.S. thrives helps explain his confidence that Beijing ultimately will buckle. But the president’s expectation that financial hardship will prompt Chinese President Xi Jinping to cave in a fresh round of diplomatic talks is misplaced, analysts said.

“There’s a lot of overly wishful thinking on the American side,” said Jeff Moon, a former U.S. trade negotiator. “Every economy has problems. We have ­trillion-dollar deficits. That doesn’t mean either economy is in fundamental danger. It’s a massive miscalculation.”

“To the extent that Trump is looking at that and thinking he has China by the neck, he’s wrong,” said economist Andrew Polk, a partner at Trivium, a Beijing-based advisory firm. “China’s economy has its own issues. It’s slowing down, but it’s not about to blow up. Trump has less leverage than he thinks.”

[Pat Mustard]

I believe a big part of the problem in the US is that the AG also fills the function of the minister for justice. Unlike in the Anglo-Irish model the AG isn't simply the government's legal advisor, there to say if proposed legislation is lawful or not, but also the effective Minister for Justice, in charge of the national legal system. It causes way too much of a conflict of interest. Of course the fact that the cabinet has no respondibility to the elected legislature is a whole quantum of another problem. An unelected government is highly un and anti democratic.

Now, our system is not perfect, yet. In Ireland judges are still in the gift of the government of the day, not independently appointed. But it is miles better than the US system.

[Angrboda]

How Trump has sunk the hopes of refugees

According to studies released earlier this summer, 2017 marked the first year in almost four decades when the United States took in fewer refugees than the rest of the world. While Washington still accepted more refugees than any single nation, that number dropped to 33,000 from about 97,000 the year before. When counted as a percentage of the nation’s overall population, American admission lagged far behind countries like Canada, Australia and Norway.

Numerous politicians, aid organizations and rights advocates warn that Trump is unraveling the country’s resettlement system. An investigation published this week by Reuters news agency, based on interviews with more than 20 current and former U.S. officials, found that “the administration has rejected internal findings that refugees could be admitted safely and with little expense,” and has frozen out dissenting voices. “Two senior staff members who questioned the administration’s policies were removed from their positions,” the report detailed.

“The administration has instituted opaque and complicated new security vetting procedures that have bogged down admissions and eliminated many candidates for resettlement who would previously have been accepted,” wrote Reuters journalists Yeganeh Torbati and Omar Mohammed. “It has extended the strictest kind of vetting to women as well as men from 11 countries, mostly in the Middle East and Africa. And it has reduced by nearly two-thirds the number of officials conducting refugee interviews, reassigning about 100 of 155 interviewers to handle asylum screenings for people already in the country, including those who crossed the border illegally.”

Such actions are often justified on security or economic grounds, with Trump arguing that immigration imports terrorism and kills American jobs. Using those arguments, he and his lieutenants have tried to crack down legal and illegal migration alike.

But those contentions don’t hold up to much scrutiny. A 2017 report by the Department of Health and Human Services — one the administration tried to suppress — found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenue than they cost to resettle. According to Reuters, White House officials were also dismayed when a review of vetting procedures carried out last year “concluded refugees from all countries could be safely allowed to enter" with a few tweaks to the system. Instead, the administration touted a report claiming that terrorism was heavily linked to immigration; the “misleading” report was later savaged in a court filing by a group of former counterterrorism officials.

“From a purely economic or security perspective, resettlement is not an issue that warrants topping even an immigration skeptic’s priority list," noted a new report from the International Crisis Group. “Resettled refugees tend to be solid contributors to the economy over the medium and long term. They do not come in sufficient numbers (an average of 80,000 annually since 1980) to generate meaningful job competition for existing American workers. And notwithstanding a handful of sensationalized cases and the reality that no form of immigration will ever be zero-risk, the program is too rigorously scrutinized to be a preferred channel for would-be security threats.”

[Joods]

Government borrowing soars despite robust economy

As a candidate, Trump promised to eliminate the debt by the time he left office.

The U.S. budget deficit is reaching levels that are abnormally high for a robust economy, and lawmakers from both parties are proposing ideas that would make the deficit swell even further.

The government spent $895 billion more than it brought in from taxes and other revenue sources during the past 11 months, the Congressional Budget Office said this week, a 33 percent increase from one year before.

Typically, the deficit shrinks during strong economic times, as the need for costly government support wanes and tax revenue rises. In 2000, the last time the unemployment rate was at its current level of 3.9 percent, the government ran a surplus, meaning tax revenue eclipsed all spending.

The dynamic is much different now.

Corporate tax receipts fell 30 percent in the past 11 months, the CBO said, precipitated by the large reduction in rates from the massive tax overhaul passed by Congress last year. Spending levels have risen sharply as a result of a bipartisan agreement to shed budget caps put in place to maintain fiscal discipline and pour more money into both military and domestic programs.

“It’s not just irresponsible, it’s wildly irresponsible,” said retired senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who added that lawmakers are pushing the deficit higher because of political expediency.

“If you are seeking elective office, the hardest thing in the world is to say, ‘I’m going to raise your taxes or cut spending on popular programs,’ ” he said.

Among the Republicans, the loudest voices recently have come from outside Congress.

“With a booming economy, full employment, a soaring stock market and record asset values, we should be shrinking the deficit, not growing it,” Mitt Romney, a Republican and Senate candidate in Utah, wrote on his campaign website Monday. He said other conservatives have largely been “silent” on the issue since President Trump took office.

Yet there are signs the borrowing binge has only begun.

But is this really a surprise given the fact that the furher-in-chief POTUS has gone bankrupt several times? He can't run his own businesses let alone a whole country.

---

Jfc. Why the hell isn't the 25th Amendment being enacted yet?

[Angrboda]

---

When policy is cut off from reality: Donald Trump’s immigration problem

Nearly a year into his presidency, all Donald Trump has to show for his campaign pledges to get tough on illegal immigration are: three executive orders that have been overturned by judges; funding proposals for a border wall that have been turned down repeatedly; and the wrath of his former aid Steve Bannon, who fans the flames on the right whenever Donald Trump seems close to compromising on the issue. And the situation is unlikely to improve.

This is the problem with policy that is cut off from reality. Trump rode the immigration issue to the Republican nomination, consistently winning his largest share of the vote among those who thought that immigration was the biggest problem before the country. He then rode it to the White House, and now he has to solve a problem that—as we shall see—wasn’t exactly what he told the voters.

[Angrboda]

[Angrboda]

Ted Cruz sends out letter asking for money disguised as a summons. And it's legal!