Tariffs

[billvon 2,396]

>Like Kallend when referring to Chiraq gun violence, it's all in the percentages.

I am reminded of all the ways that the right wing tried to claim that there was no recession in 2008 and the first few weeks of 2009. "It's a bad day to be crying the R word!" claimed one poster here.

[kallend 1,623]

billvon

>Like Kallend when referring to Chiraq gun violence, it's all in the percentages.

I am reminded of all the ways that the right wing tried to claim that there was no recession in 2008 and the first few weeks of 2009. "It's a bad day to be crying the R word!" claimed one poster here.

IIRC they were the same people that thought GWB's "evidence" to justify invading Iraq was actually true.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 197]

kallend

***>Like Kallend when referring to Chiraq gun violence, it's all in the percentages.

I am reminded of all the ways that the right wing tried to claim that there was no recession in 2008 and the first few weeks of 2009. "It's a bad day to be crying the R word!" claimed one poster here.

IIRC they were the same people that thought GWB's "evidence" to justify invading Iraq was actually true.

Funny...the Times seems to think there are WMD's in Iraq.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,396]

The latest casualty of Trump's reckless leadership.

Getting sick of all the winning yet?
============================
Stock market plunges as Wall Street gives Trump’s China deal another look
The president calling himself “Tariff Man” didn’t help.

By Emily Stewart Updated Dec 4, 2018, 4:07pm EST
VOX

Stock market investors appear to be signaling they believe President Donald Trump’s trade compromise with China is a bit of a dud.

Wall Street was initially encouraged by Trump’s Saturday deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping in which both sides agreed to a 90-day timeout of the US-China trade war. Major United States stock indexes climbed on Monday amid optimism the US and China might strike a deal, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which Trump often touts, gaining nearly 300 points.

But after investors had a second day to think about US-China trade relations, they appear to have changed their minds on how optimistic they feel. The Dow plunged on Tuesday, falling nearly 800 points by market close, and the S&P 500 and Nasdaq saw deep declines as well. All three major indexes ended the day down by 3 percent or more.

Trump isn’t the only factor making markets edgy — there are concerns about a potential economic slowdown and the Federal Reserve’s interest rate path as well.

But Wall Street is sending a clear signal that, upon closer inspection, Trump’s trade war détente with China isn’t looking so hot — especially after a string of tweets from the president this morning indicated he has no problem going back to a trade war if a broader agreement isn’t reached in the next three months.

In one tweet, Trump referred to himself as a “Tariff Man.” The Wall Street Journal reports that after those tweets, the Dow fell by 200 points.
. . .

The president immediately took a victory lap, boasting on Twitter that China had agreed to reduce its current 40 percent tariffs on US auto imports to zero, and claiming that China would “start purchasing agricultural product immediately.”

The White House hasn’t been able to back up Trump’s claims, though, indicating the president is overselling what happened in Buenos Aires. National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow acknowledged in a call with reporters on Monday that there was no “specific agreement” on auto tariffs. Kudlow also said he couldn’t “specifically” answer questions about China’s agricultural product purchases, saying his “expectation” is that China would roll back tariffs on goods “quickly.”

There also appeared to be some confusion on the timeline from the US: Kudlow initially told reporters the 90-day clock started on January 1, but the White House later put out a correction, saying it was actually December 1.

There’s also a different story coming out of China about what happened. As the Washington Post notes, state media outlets on Monday made no mention of Trump’s 90-day time frame or reducing tariffs on US cars. They didn’t offer specifics on buying American-made products, either.

Michael Antonelli, a managing director at Robert W Baird & Co., told Bloomberg the market was acting like a “scorned lover” in relation to Trump’s trade deal. “It had believed, for whatever reason, that progress was being made at the G20 and that turns out to be murky — it feels lied to,” he said.
==================

[SkyDekker 1,121]

airdvr

***4 of the top 5 biggest point drops in the Dow have now occurred during the Trump administration.

Like Kallend when referring to Chiraq gun violence, it's all in the percentages.

Fully agreed.

Growth in Dow Jones:

Obama 148.3%
Trump 26%

Clinton and Obama both beat:
Reagan
George HW Bush
George W Bush

So if you want better economic performance, the last 6 US presidencies would suggest that voting Democrat is the better choice.

[billvon 2,396]

>So if you want better economic performance, the last 6 US presidencies would
>suggest that voting Democrat is the better choice.

If you want better economic performance AND lower deficits, then democratic is the way to go.

[lummy 4]

airdvr

******>Like Kallend when referring to Chiraq gun violence, it's all in the percentages.

I am reminded of all the ways that the right wing tried to claim that there was no recession in 2008 and the first few weeks of 2009. "It's a bad day to be crying the R word!" claimed one poster here.

IIRC they were the same people that thought GWB's "evidence" to justify invading Iraq was actually true.

Funny...the Times seems to think there are WMD's in Iraq.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

from the article, the were abandoned unusable munitions from the 80's

Quote

Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[jakee 1,254]

airdvr

******>Like Kallend when referring to Chiraq gun violence, it's all in the percentages.

I am reminded of all the ways that the right wing tried to claim that there was no recession in 2008 and the first few weeks of 2009. "It's a bad day to be crying the R word!" claimed one poster here.

IIRC they were the same people that thought GWB's "evidence" to justify invading Iraq was actually true.

Funny...the Times seems to think there are WMD's in Iraq.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

And you agree with them? Good! Because to be clear, this is what the article says: "These weapons were not part of an active arsenal. They were remnants from Iraq's arms program in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war."

So if you believed the Bush admin was telling the truth about an active Iraqi weapons program, the article you just provided says you were wrong.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 1,623]

airdvr

******>Like Kallend when referring to Chiraq gun violence, it's all in the percentages.

I am reminded of all the ways that the right wing tried to claim that there was no recession in 2008 and the first few weeks of 2009. "It's a bad day to be crying the R word!" claimed one poster here.

IIRC they were the same people that thought GWB's "evidence" to justify invading Iraq was actually true.

Funny...the Times seems to think there are WMD's in Iraq.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Nice try.

"The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program."

"American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West."

Reading comprehension is important. Words are important.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 197]

You believe what you want. Bottom line for me is there were/are WMD in Iraq. In 2003 I'm certain you possessed a crystal ball that told you SH would never use those in any way against us.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[gowlerk 1,907]

airdvr

You believe what you want. Bottom line for me is there were/are WMD in Iraq. In 2003 I'm certain you possessed a crystal ball that told you SH would never use those in any way against us.

You sound a bit like a "dead ender" on that. Even the people who made the claims at the time now admit their error.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[airdvr 197]

gowlerk

***You believe what you want. Bottom line for me is there were/are WMD in Iraq. In 2003 I'm certain you possessed a crystal ball that told you SH would never use those in any way against us.

You sound a bit like a "dead ender" on that. Even the people who made the claims at the time now admit their error.

You didn't read the article which clearly shows the locations of the WMD? I'm not re-hashing the whole W, Condeleeza, Powell, Rumsfeld side of this or whether there was an active program. Doesn't change the facts of the situation at the time.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi airdvr,

Quote

which clearly shows the locations of the WMD?

Please tell us how you can determine the location of something that does not exist?



Jerry Baumchen

PS) This is on par with Ron's 'Who really killed JFK' stupidity.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

airdvr

You believe what you want. Bottom line for me is there were/are WMD in Iraq. In 2003 I'm certain you possessed a crystal ball that told you SH would never use those in any way against us.

Well, I didn't.

But the UN inspection teams found nothing to indicate that he was making any. Or that he had anything usable.

Everything that was found, from 2000 or so on, was old, damaged & degraded and unusable. More dangerous to anyone trying to use (or even move) it than to any adversary.

SH may have been trying to hold onto some of it, but, kinda like parking a car, if you don't store it properly, it won't be of any use after a while.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[airdvr 197]

JerryBaumchen

Hi airdvr,

Quote

which clearly shows the locations of the WMD?

Please tell us how you can determine the location of something that does not exist?



Jerry Baumchen

PS) This is on par with Ron's 'Who really killed JFK' stupidity.

Well Jerry if you don't take the time to read the article I can't be of assistance with your particular brand of stupidity.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 197]

wolfriverjoe

***You believe what you want. Bottom line for me is there were/are WMD in Iraq. In 2003 I'm certain you possessed a crystal ball that told you SH would never use those in any way against us.

Well, I didn't.

But the UN inspection teams found nothing to indicate that he was making any. Or that he had anything usable.

Everything that was found, from 2000 or so on, was old, damaged & degraded and unusable. More dangerous to anyone trying to use (or even move) it than to any adversary.

SH may have been trying to hold onto some of it, but, kinda like parking a car, if you don't store it properly, it won't be of any use after a while.

I'm not debating his intentions here. But for people to run around and say there were no WMD...ignorant.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 1,623]

airdvr

You believe what you want. Bottom line for me is there were/are WMD in Iraq. In 2003 I'm certain you possessed a crystal ball that told you SH would never use those in any way against us.

I'm just quoting from the article that YOU linked, which appears to support my point and not yours. The person having the reading problem seems to be airdvr.

And since you mention it, I am on record in this very forum in 2003, before the invasion, disputing the veracity of the WMD claims.
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=386328;search_string=evidence%20presented;#386328 et seq.

Also on 2/16/2003 I wrote in this forum:

"Unfortunately the stuff that Secretary Powell showed last week was not very convincing, not remotely as convincing as the presentation made by Adlai Stevenson during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In fact, some of it was so unconvincing that some people are suggesting the CIA set him up to look bad."

So it seems I had a pretty much perfect record on that issue, unlike the righties.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi airdvr,

Quote

if you don't take the time to read the article

I took the time read far enough to conclude that it is nothing but horsepuckey. Just like when I read Ron's link to the point where it also is nothing but horsepuckey.

If you choose to believe this type of stuff, that is your choice; good luck with that type of thinking as you continue thru life.

Jerry Baumchen

[BIGUN 1,051]

billvon

>So if you want better economic performance, the last 6 US presidencies would
>suggest that voting Democrat is the better choice.

If you want better economic performance AND lower deficits, then democratic is the way to go.

Quote

Conclusion:

This paper reviews a provocative but well-supported hypothesis that Democratic presidents have overseen superior economic performance since at least Harry Truman. I confirmed the basic hypothesis using updated data from the same sources that also include the second Obama term. Section I explored whether Blinder-Watson’s hypothesis hinges on their use of a one-quarter lag in defining a presidential term. It does.

The high degree of variability of presidential growth rates relative to the lag timing throws significant doubts on the Blinder-Watson hypothesis. Without a better rationale, there seems little reason to trust a hypothesis that hinges on a coincidental use of a short lag that has no historical foundation, particularly when that lag coincidentally maximizes the D-R gap and the statistical significance of partisan identity as an explanatory variable.

A superior way of assessing the economic performance of a presidential administration might be to consider overlapping influence of current and former presidents during a term, an approach that was developed in Section II. Whether overlapping quarters or years, the results were different than when any discrete lagging of terms is utilized.

Future work on presidential economic performance is needed, but it should recognize that party identification is an elastic concept. Political writers often observe that a Republican (or Democrat) in the White House today would have been a Democrat (or Republican) three decades ago. Ronald Reagan advocated for greater levels of immigration and signed legislation that granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in 1986, a policy anathema to conservatives in recent years. Richard Nixon enacted wage and price controls, and famously went to China, both decidedly non-conservative positions. Liberal JFK cut income tax rates at all levels, the first president to do so since before the Great Depression, and tax-cutting (especially for the rich) is decidedly out of step with modern progressive ideology. These examples show that the inconsistent relationship between partisanship and ideology is a challenge that blurs the important question of how policy affects the economy.

SOURCE: https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/17101-kane-presidents_and_the_us_economy_from_1949_to_2016_updated.pdf

So, I don't share this for any controversial reason - it's just a good read.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[billvon 2,396]

>In 2003 I'm certain you possessed a crystal ball that told you SH would never use those in
> any way against us.

No need for a crystal ball. As the article points out, there was no way to use those weapons against us. Period.

[airdvr 197]

JerryBaumchen

Hi airdvr,

Quote

if you don't take the time to read the article

I took the time read far enough to conclude that it is nothing but horsepuckey. Just like when I read Ron's link to the point where it also is nothing but horsepuckey.

If you choose to believe this type of stuff, that is your choice; good luck with that type of thinking as you continue thru life.

Jerry Baumchen

Hehe...keep up with the arrogance. You would be so lucky to have my life...I know I am.

Problem here is the original topic of this conversation was the Dow. Since my point couldn't be countered effectively your usual cast of characters needed to change the subject and here we are.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,396]

Quote

keep up with the arrogance. You would be so lucky to have my life...I know I am.

No need to even comment on that; it speaks for itself.

Quote

Problem here is the original topic of this conversation was the Dow. Since my point couldn't be countered effectively your usual cast of characters needed to change the subject and here we are.

Like that guy who couldn't make a valid reply to the topic, so tried to change the subject to WMD's?

[jakee 1,254]

airdvr

I'm not debating his intentions here. But for people to run around and say there were no WMD...ignorant.

No, the ignorance comes from someone who can read an article purely about remaining stockpiles of old, corroded, unuseable and unsalvageable weapons and think it has any relation to the arguments put forward for the second Iraq war.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,254]

airdvr

You believe what you want. Bottom line for me is there were/are WMD in Iraq.

Which everyone knew. Seriously. No-one, absolutely no-one disputes that Iraq had a WMD program and made weapons. It's the lie that the program was still ongoing and was producing viable weapons in 2003 that is the problem.

Quote

In 2003 I'm certain you possessed a crystal ball that told you SH would never use those in any way against us.

I possessed the information coming from neutral UN weapons inspectors who said there was no threat. I also possessed history and common sense - even if Saddam had WMD why would he use them against the west? He was ruthless and brutal, but not insane.

What my crystal ball told me was that invading Iraq would be a perfect way to destabilise the region, provide the perfect propaganda for extremist groups throughout the muslim world, and throw away any chance of a better outcome in Afghanistan by diverting huge resources away from that mission while mobilising a new insurgency at the same time. Unfortunately, my crystal ball was pretty damn good.

Your crystal ball won us what? A decade long war. Thousands of western military casualties, tens of thousands of eastern military casualties and hundreds of thousands of eastern civilian casualties, continued instability in Iraq and Afghanistan and is directly responsible for ISIS.

Yeah, you must be so glad we took that risk.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,396]

>Which everyone knew. Seriously. No-one, absolutely no-one disputes that Iraq had a
>WMD program and made weapons.

Indeed. We still had the receipts.