IG Horowitz report on Clinton email due soon

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm sorry, writing a check that created the greatest deficit ratio in the nations history is not an example of starting the recovery. Initiating ACA was not an example of starting the recovery, so please list those things that started the recovery.

Lol.  Right. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

2 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

All the key witnesses have already been given immunity by the DOJ from the previous administration and most of the evidence has already been destroyed.

If it is so known that evidence has been destroyed, that means there is evidence of the evidence being destroyed. Why hasn't the Trump camp provided that evidence? 

 

inb4 "yo dog, i heard you like evidence".jpg

[David Dennison 19570]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm sorry, writing a check that created the greatest deficit ratio in the nations history is not an example of starting the recovery. Initiating ACA was not an example of starting the recovery, so please list those things that started the recovery.

Well, the first one is absolutely an example of starting the recovery, so this conversation is already over.

The best thing that can be said about Donald Trump is that he hasn't completely fucked up the ongoing recovery.

[Captainant 28601]

4 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

All the key witnesses have already been given immunity by the DOJ from the previous administration and most of the evidence has already been destroyed.

If the witnesses have been given immunity then they can be compelled to testify or face legal consequences. If she's so guilty and if there's so much evidence of her wrong doings, then why aren't they just simply subpoenaing your so-called witnesses to rebuild the case? There's literally no reason the trump admin can't do that 

 

 

 

...

 

 

unless there's nothing to actually prosecute

Edited June 14, 2018 by Captainant

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

Lol.  Right. 

I know, good of you to acknowledge it.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Good one! 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Well, the first one is absolutely an example of starting the recovery, so this conversation is already over.

The best thing that can be said about Donald Trump is that he hasn't completely fucked up the ongoing recovery.

Gosh, that genius Mr. Obama and his economic plan. We still don't know where hundreds of millions of those recovery dollars went to.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Onboard 2.0

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Good one! 

Thanks......

[jimmyjazz 47333]

6 minutes ago, riloh05 said:

my counter arguement is that from oct 15 - oct 17 under obama it was pretty stagnent... yes or no? the growth under trump had a very good run... yes or no? i didnt create the stock market talking point. but since its out there the run under trump in one year is better than obamas last year... yes or no?

 

Well, not really.  The S&P 500 grew 22.2% in Obama's last year (1/20/16 - 1/20/17), whereas it grew 23.7% in Trump's first year (1/20/17 - 1/20/18).  The market is now 1% down, 5 months later.

You sure you want to continue?

[EMAWesome 101]

56 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

News flash, we have 2,000 troops in Syria...on a "per area" basis that's the same troop level we have in Iraq (5,000)

 

How were the tax cuts a good thing?  I know the term "tax cut" sounds great, but the average American is expected to see a $1,600 reduction in taxes; which is misleading since 65% of the gains go to the Top 20% of earners.

On the corporate side, things are even worse.  As predicted, most companies are using the tax break to reward shareholders, with stock buybacks and dividend.  Which on the surface might sound great until you realize that 80% of those benefits go to foreigners...not Americans...and we only have to add $2.2 trillion to the National Debt...what a bargain!

Dude, we are literally the ONLY country not in the Paris Accord...fucking Syria joined for God's sake.  But I guess you're right, it's a stupid deal.  Thank God we have a visionary leader like Trump to keep us from being bat shit crazy, like every other nation on Earth, for believing in climate change.  

Yes, a verifiable agreement that puts UN inspectors on the ground is such a bad idea.  We should have just had a summit where Trump could pitch his vision of beach front property in Iran.  They would have dropped their nuclear ambitions in a heartbeat, just like Trump says NK did.

You know they've completed "testing" because they have working missiles, right?  Oh, and they're nuke facility was accidentally destroyed.  But yeah, they totally stopped because of mean Tweets from Trump.

It puts UN inspectors on the ground where nothing is being stored.  It doesn't put them on the ground at any of the military bases in Iran which would seem like a good place to start looking for evidence of nuclear weapons.  I'm nowhere near the top 20% of earners and I have seen a notable increase in my paycheck from last year.  Yes, we have 2.000 troops in Syria, with Hillary that would be 20,000 (plus or plus plus, depending on how much dirt on her Assad has).  What was Hillary's economic plan again?  You would think someone with her remarkable success rate in the field of cattle futures would have been up for a Nobel Prize in Economics for her proposals.

[jimmyjazz 47333]

7 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm sorry, writing a check that created the greatest deficit ratio in the nations history is not an example of starting the recovery. Initiating ACA was not an example of starting the recovery, so please list those things that started the recovery.

If this is true, then Obama had nothing to do with the massive bull market, and the precipitous drop in unemployment, yet somehow Trump is responsible for the incremental improvements in both since Obama left office.

As I asked riloh, you sure you want to continue?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Consumer confidence is high.

Business confidence is high.

I don't think some of you people realize the business and growth crushing shit Obama regulatory agencies did.  I deal with the DOL a lot and the NLRB some.  They both went completely batshit left.  I am suspecting most other agencies did as well. 

The debt is a major problem.  I don't see a way out. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

The economy certainly improved during Mr. Obamas tenure, I was slammed the last 2 years of his admin. That being said, presidents don't really affect the economy.  They are usually beneficiaries or victims of the current of economic trends.  Low low low interest rates saved his admins collective asses.

 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, not really.  The S&P 500 grew 22.2% in Obama's last year (1/20/16 - 1/20/17), whereas it grew 23.7% in Trump's first year (1/20/17 - 1/20/18).  The market is now 1% down, 5 months later.

You sure you want to continue?

Some might run those numbers from the election since markets are forward looking.

[TwiceHorn 32108]

On 6/8/2018 at 8:59 AM, Mojo Hand said:

The intent argument seems pretty reasonable to me:  the statute would be unconstitutionally vague absent a mens rea requirement, ergo it should be read to include one.   While I disagree with Comey's conclusion on the evidence, that legal conclusion seems sound to me. 

My point was that you do not have to rely on Petraeus' intent vs. Hillary's intent to draw a major factual distinction in the two cases.  From that factual distinction, you may infer differing levels of intention.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

If this is true, then Obama had nothing to do with the massive bull market, and the precipitous drop in unemployment, yet somehow Trump is responsible for the incremental improvements in both since Obama left office.

As I asked riloh, you sure you want to continue?

Mr. Obama didn't cut regulatory road blocks. Mr. Trump has apparently. THAT is good for business. Mr. Obamas original plan was a massive wealth redistribution, Thank god the 2008 crash kept him from being able to move along that path.

[BabaYaga 15632]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

precipitous drop in unemployment

UE3 numbers mean jack squat without reconciling them against the labor participation rate.  Didn't with Obama.  Don't with Trump.  

[jimmyjazz 47333]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

UE3 numbers mean jack squat without reconciling them against the labor participation rate.  Didn't with Obama.  Don't with Trump.  

That's a perfectly reasonable argument, as long as it's actually recognized, which (of course) is not being done with Trump.  BEST UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS EVER!!!  MAGA!!! 

Bullshit.  Be consistent.

[EMAWesome 101]

11 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

If it is so known that evidence has been destroyed, that means there is evidence of the evidence being destroyed. Why hasn't the Trump camp provided that evidence? 

 

inb4 "yo dog, i heard you like evidence".jpg

Because the FBI let her take her servers to a technical contractor of her choosing which is where the destroying was done.  Christ trying to explain anything to anyone around here is like trying to explain how to climb a tree to a fish.  I feel like Sarah Huckabee trying to explain anything to the White House press corp.  Wait a minute, that would explain some things.  To the David Dennison guy posting in this thread, you aren't "David Dennison" are you?  You're really Jim Acosta.  It all makes sense now.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

That's a perfectly reasonable argument, as long as it's actually recognized, which (of course) is not being done with Trump.  BEST UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS EVER!!!  MAGA!!! 

Bullshit.  Be consistent.

If you just look at the construction industry you can see major employment gains.  I can't even get a contractor for 6 months because the market is so strong, and they can't find more people to employ. That's just my industry. Every segment of the economy  is seeing this trend. Whether that's Trumps doing remains to be seen, but its happening in his watch.

So let's talk about how much employment has improved, and not just the seasonal numbers that are always used to bolster Mr. Obamas numbers.

[jimmyjazz 47333]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

So let's talk about how much employment has improved, and not just the seasonal numbers that are always used to bolster Mr. Obamas numbers.

LOL.  So "seasonality" explained Obama's numbers . . . and yet "seasonality" is by definition a cyclical phenomenon.

Are you making this shit up?

[Jiggy-Z 3509]

41 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

But you are not asking for the slope "beginning" to end. You set a selective origination point.  I am just setting a couple more.  If I were to attempt to break the chart down into an interrupted time series, it would be something like this:

2003-2008 period 1

2008-1Q2009 - crash

1Q2009-2012 - recovery

2012-3Q2016 - period 4

3Q2016-present - period 5

 

Now calculate the slopes for each of those periods and compare.  I am fairly confident that you would find a statistically significant steeper slope for period 3 and 5 vs 4. 

 

 

What we are seeing is:

1. A general continuation of a trend.

2. Effects of tax cuts

3. Possible effects of deregulation or anticipated effect of deregulation.

 

The market run could be argued is largely the effect of the tax cut. The corporate tax rate was cut from 35% to 21% , which is a 40% cut in taxes.  Keep in mid that the corporate rate does not phase out unless the law is changed.  Stock price is necessarily going to go up because automatically the present value of future cash flows or after tax earning is going to go up.  The tax law automatically makes the stock more valuable other things being equal. Wall street does not wait for the law to pass either.  The mere anticipation of the cut is enough to bet on-and rightly so. However, as far as stock price goes, the tax cut is a one time bump that has future effects factored in.

Trump has not been president long enough to claim full credit for a general trend in stock price that was already occurring and the bump we seeing is almost entirely from the tax cuts anticipated effects and other global economy factors.

[BabaYaga 15632]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That's a perfectly reasonable argument, as long as it's actually recognized, which (of course) is not being done with Trump.  BEST UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS EVER!!!  MAGA!!! 

Bullshit.  Be consistent.

They are lower.  Problem arises when comparing to historic norms.  That's where you have to reconcile with historically shittastic labor participation rates.  Which funny enough, we never heard much about from our resident Obama goal tenders during the last 8 years....consistency and all that.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

LOL.  So "seasonality" explained Obama's numbers . . . and yet "seasonality" is by definition a cyclical phenomenon.

Are you making this shit up?

No I said used to bolster his numbers.  This isn't a seasonal employment trend right now (or the last 2 quarters), its across all industry. try to keep up now....

[BabaYaga 15632]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

not just the seasonal numbers that are always used to bolster Mr. Obamas numbers.

Or the constant revisions down that quietly happened without so much as a peep from the MSM

[riloh05 107]

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, not really.  The S&P 500 grew 22.2% in Obama's last year (1/20/16 - 1/20/17), whereas it grew 23.7% in Trump's first year (1/20/17 - 1/20/18).  The market is now 1% down, 5 months later.

You sure you want to continue?

so my comment was correct? 11/8/16 is a good starting point, being that markets are reactionary. go on and revise the numbers.

[Captainant 28601]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

If you just look at the construction industry you can see major employment gains.  I can't even get a contractor for 6 months because the market is so strong, and they can't find more people to employ. That's just my industry. Every segment of the economy  is seeing this trend. Whether that's Trumps doing remains to be seen, but its happening in his watch.

So let's talk about how much employment has improved, and not just the seasonal numbers that are always used to bolster Mr. Obamas numbers.

Employment is better, but with increased inflation and rising cost of goods from trump's "very easy to win" trade war AND stagnating wages, lower unemployment alone doesn't make much of a difference.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/most-americans-wages-have-declined-over-the-past-year.html

[BabaYaga 15632]

3 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

almost entirely from the tax cuts anticipated effects and other global economy factors.

We going Sizzler?

[jimmyjazz 47333]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

They are lower.  Problem arises when comparing to historic norms.  That's where you have to reconcile with historically shittastic labor participation rates.  Which funny enough, we never heard much about from our resident Obama goal tenders during the last 8 years....consistency and all that.

I'm sorry, you're going to have to explain this gem of a post.  WTF?  What are "lower"?  Trump touts UE3 just as the Obama administration did, and the Trumpkins lap it up.  Come on, man.

[jimmyjazz 47333]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No I said used to bolster his numbers.  This isn't a seasonal employment trend right now (or the last 2 quarters), its across all industry. try to keep up now....

You're absolutely cryptic.  "Seasonality" cannot be used to justify consistent drops in unemployment.  What you are apparently referring to is "seasonally adjusted" numbers, which have been used since the dawn of time.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Captainant said:

Employment is better, but with increased inflation and rising cost of goods from trump's "very easy to win" trade war AND stagnating wages, lower unemployment alone doesn't make much of a difference.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/most-americans-wages-have-declined-over-the-past-year.html

Do we have increased inflation ?  I see it being artificially created in the construction because of consumer demand.  Have we actually embarked on a trade war or is it still just pen rattling by Trump ?

[jimmyjazz 47333]

2 minutes ago, riloh05 said:

so my comment was correct? 11/8/16 is a good starting point, being that markets are reactionary. go on and revise the numbers.

I'm not going to do your homework for you.  Your statement was "Obama's last year" and "Trump's first year" and I proved that the numbers are essentially the same.

Funny how ya'll weren't ever nearly so interested in the details 2008-2016.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

You're absolutely cryptic.  "Seasonality" cannot be used to justify consistent drops in unemployment.  What you are apparently referring to is "seasonally adjusted" numbers, which have been used since the dawn of time.

Seasonal employment is typically temporary employment Christmas and Summer help.  Real full time employment are the real indicators of a strong  economy.

[BabaYaga 15632]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm sorry, you're going to have to explain this gem of a post.  WTF?  What are "lower"?  Trump touts UE3 just as the Obama administration did, and the Trumpkins lap it up.  Come on, man.

Jesus Christ, this isn't hard.  UE dropped.  It's a bullshit metric compared to historic norms due to labor participation rate exclusions, but it is going down.  Especially across certain demographics.  It's not really at the number stated, but the downward trend is real.

[Cheeseweasel 26443]

This thread has gone full retard. Maybe you guys could start a new one called "Shit that the president did to improve the economy all encompassing thread of speculation" or something.

[jimmyjazz 47333]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Jesus Christ, this isn't hard.  UE dropped.  It's a bullshit metric compared to historic norms due to labor participation rate exclusions, but it is going down.  Especially across certain demographics.  It's not really at the number stated, but the downward trend is real.

Jesus Christ yourself, I'm not arguing it dropped you fool.  I'm arguing it dropped at the same rate it's been dropping for years.

God damn.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Why should the the United States have a strong economy? What are we growing for now? To support dictators and betray our allies? 

Point being, what purpose does the United States have in the world today? 

We have a strong economy, but who gives a shit if all we are going to do with that strength is fuck over everyone else including ourselves.

Hip hip hooray.

We might as well be the old Soviet Union, when they produced. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[jimmyjazz 47333]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Seasonal employment is typically temporary employment Christmas and Summer help.  Real full time employment are the real indicators of a strong  economy.

You're beyond help.

[Captainant 28601]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Do we have increased inflation ?  I see it being artificially created in the construction because of consumer demand.  Have we actually embarked on a trade war or is it still just pen rattling by Trump ?

Well considering the Canadians, you know one of our biggest trade partners, are doing dollar for dollar tariffs back at the US I don't think you can argue that a trade war ISN'T happening.

And yes, Trump's inflation rate is higher than Obama's if you leave out the 2011 double dip

[BabaYaga 15632]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Jesus Christ yourself, I'm not arguing it dropped you fool.  I'm arguing it dropped at the same rate it's been dropping for years.

God damn.

No, you're goal tending

[jimmyjazz 47333]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

No, you're goal tending

No, I'm not.  Prove otherwise.

[Fozzz 152]

So the GOP’s argument is that since the investigation was unfair to Hillary, it needs to be reopened under Trump’s DOJ?

Hahahahaha

[babysdaddy 2731]

Jimmy always loves to select certain dates to prove his point.   Jimmy did this when we got into a debate on deficits in the fall of 2016.  Jimmy is smart although misleading unless you're very aware of his date selections and what was going on in the markets during that time.  Same thing with that guy that tried to point out markets are down since January 26th of this year.  

Trump is an asshole.  So was Obama.  Presidents either get too much or not enough credit on market impacts, depending on your view.  My personal opinion is that Obama very much benefited from his starting point coupled with quantitative easing.  He was hostile towards business....and rightfully so given what was going on in the world that led to his election and his initial 6 months in office.  Interest rate impacts on asset prices are the reason for the exacerbation of wealth inequality over the last decade.  Growth was fine during Obama, probably could've been better, but there was no clarity from DC (both Congress and the President) on tax policy for the longish term.  Once Pubs controlled Congress and the Presidency, markets (correctly) assumed an environment of deregulation, reduced taxes, and generally a postive view on business from DC.  That is what drove markets immediately post election and the tax bill supercharged it from Dec to Jan 26th (!!!).  Earnings have since come in and reduced the Forward PE from 19x to 16x.  So, as markets usually do, info is priced in prior to results.  That is the reason for the flatness since Feb.

[jimmyjazz 47333]

13 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Jimmy always loves to select certain dates to prove his point.   Jimmy did this when we got into a debate on deficits in the fall of 2016.  Jimmy is smart although misleading unless you're very aware of his date selections and what was going on in the markets during that time.  Same thing with that guy that tried to point out markets are down since January 26th of this year.  

LOL wut?  I've taken the dates offered and beat down the arguments.  You should probably not worry so much about "jimmy".

You either take a macro view or you don't.  The less macro the view, the easier it is to cherry pick dates.  I took almost the most defensible macro view possible in comparing Trump to Obama, but by all means attack me for trying to actually get to the truth.

[babysdaddy 2731]

you neg'd me?  haha, you are such a sensitive little pussy.

[jimmyjazz 47333]

Just now, babysdaddy said:

you neg'd me?  haha, you are such a sensitive little pussy.

Wow, talk about sensitive.  Look in the fucking mirror and neg away, baby.  Daddy.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

21 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Jimmy always loves to select certain dates to prove his point.   Jimmy did this when we got into a debate on deficits in the fall of 2016.  Jimmy is smart although misleading unless you're very aware of his date selections and what was going on in the markets during that time.  Same thing with that guy that tried to point out markets are down since January 26th of this year.  

Trump is an asshole.  So was Obama.  Presidents either get too much or not enough credit on market impacts, depending on your view.  My personal opinion is that Obama very much benefited from his starting point coupled with quantitative easing.  He was hostile towards business....and rightfully so given what was going on in the world that led to his election and his initial 6 months in office.  Interest rate impacts on asset prices are the reason for the exacerbation of wealth inequality over the last decade.  Growth was fine during Obama, probably could've been better, but there was no clarity from DC (both Congress and the President) on tax policy for the longish term.  Once Pubs controlled Congress and the Presidency, markets (correctly) assumed an environment of deregulation, reduced taxes, and generally a postive view on business from DC.  That is what drove markets immediately post election and the tax bill supercharged it from Dec to Jan 26th (!!!).  Earnings have since come in and reduced the Forward PE from 19x to 16x.  So, as markets usually do, info is priced in prior to results.  That is the reason for the flatness since Feb.

Niiiiiice.

[jimmyjazz 47333]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Niiiiiice.

Except he completely ignored the 2 most correlated events in short-term market stagnations or dips, those being Greece/China and Brexit.

One can tell the whole truth or not, but intentionally omitting truth is not exactly back-patting material.  Except on the right.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[shnsajax 3607]

Quote

The Justice Department's internal watchdog found that former FBI Director James Comey's actions in the Hillary Clinton email investigation deviated from the department's norms but that Comey was not motivated by political bias, according to two sources familiar with the report.

So that's it? Happy BDay Commander Bone Spurs.