|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Impeachment boomerang /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1575557440 Message started by WebsterMark on 12/05/19 at 06:50:40 |
|
Title: Impeachment boomerang Post by WebsterMark on 12/05/19 at 06:50:40 If impeachment for abuse of power fails in the Senate, can the House leaders who pushed for it be impeached for.....abuse of power? |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Serowbot on 12/05/19 at 07:26:02 By who?... |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by raydawg on 12/05/19 at 07:37:03 003235242332251A36253C570 wrote:
That was awesome...wasn't it ;D He was the only scholar that seemed relaxed, able to converse and dialogue, answering question without appearing to regurgitate preconceived talking points...... What a cluster fruck. Watch the numbers against impeachment rise after this fiasco. Just think what a senate hearing will look like...... :o :o :o :o |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Mavigogun on 12/05/19 at 08:26:01 66756D70756373140 wrote:
That's not what I saw. Noah Feldman, of Harvard Law School, was composed, demonstrated both circumstantial and foundational understanding, and though energized by concern, at ease. Pamela Karlan, of Stanford Law School, was full of ire, making clear that "relaxed" was not the appropriate response to what she sees as overt Constitutional transgressions, citing cause. When invited to opine on Obstruction of Justice- outside of her area of expertise -she refused. Michael Gerhardt, of the University of North Carolina School of Law, was the most sedate of all the panelists, exhibiting levels of relaxation only otherwise obtained by tortoises and the mighty Sequoya. Jonathan Turley, of the George Washington University Law School, was most definitely comfortable in his role- but was certainly not free from preconceptions... except from those he expressed in recent years in writing, and the last time he testified before Congress on impeachment: "While there's a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable- serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough." "No matter how you feel about President Clinton- and I don't dislike President Clinton, I voted for President Clinton -no matter how you feel about President Clinton, no matter how you feel about the independent council, by his own conduct, he has deprived himself of the perceived legitimacy to govern. You need both political and legal legitimacy to govern this nation because the President must be able to demand an absolute sacrifice form the public at a moments notice." His arguments yesterday, while well presented, were specious, and lacked sincerity, being so completely at odds with his previous testimony before the exact same body. Let's be clear: Turley supported impeaching Clinton for lying about an affair. To date, Trump has refused to provide direct testimony- we all know that is because he and everyone around him believes he would either purger himself or provide evidence in support of removal at least, and prosecution likely. Polls vacillate. These most recent transgression by the President have seen Republican support for impeaching at over 15%. Now that has fallen to just bellow 10%. It seems clear that a portion of those within the Party who care about these offenses are also subject to being influenced by specious argument. Ray, did you watch all of the testimony? -or only curated excerpts? |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by raydawg on 12/05/19 at 08:35:56 I did not have the luxury of watching all of it......just bits and pieces and highlights. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by srinath on 12/05/19 at 08:37:53 I think they should defeat him, then indict him, and jail him, so he cant pardon himself. How would the "imprisonment" of a president work ? House arrest ? Costing the tax payer what ??? several mil a yr ? Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Mavigogun on 12/05/19 at 08:49:01 5E4D55484D5B4B2C0 wrote:
Honest, that. I suggest your review-to-comment relationship is out of balance in this case. This instance serves as illustration of the challenge to educating the public on complex matters: without sufficient time and attention, flawed argument and sentimental appeals may trump the record. 46475C5B54415D350 wrote:
That should be "imprisonment of a former President"- given the present favor of Justice Department memos, the President would need to first be impeached, then removed from office to be prosecuted. There after, incarceration would most likely be in a Federal Supermax; I suspect that would be somewhat less costly than the life long Secret Service security protection former Presidents enjoy. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by srinath on 12/05/19 at 09:31:30 202C3B242A222A38234D0 wrote:
Honest, that. I suggest your review-to-comment relationship is out of balance in this case. This instance serves as illustration of the challenge to educating the public on complex matters: without sufficient time and attention, flawed argument and sentimental appeals may trump the record. 46475C5B54415D350 wrote:
That should be "imprisonment of a former President"- given the present favor of Justice Department memos, the President would need to first be impeached, then removed from office to be prosecuted. There after, incarceration would most likely be in a Federal Supermax; I suspect that would be somewhat less costly than the life long Secret Service security protection former Presidents enjoy. [/quote] Will be more $$ to protect him in supermax. I'd guess there would need to be 2 Secret service for every other criminal. But in any case, I really am going to see the "pardon Donald J Trump" sentence shortly is my feeling. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Eegore on 12/05/19 at 09:42:05 "Will be more $$ to protect him in supermax. I'd guess there would need to be 2 Secret service for every other criminal." What do you mean? Why on earth would Secret Service ever protect criminals, especially ones in isolation? |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Mavigogun on 12/05/19 at 10:00:09 It doesn't make sense. It's a sentimental deflection, not a substantive one, so the contents don't really matter. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by WebsterMark on 12/05/19 at 10:27:18 47544C51544252350 wrote:
That was awesome...wasn't it ;D He was the only scholar that seemed relaxed, able to converse and dialogue, answering question without appearing to regurgitate preconceived talking points...... What a cluster fruck. Watch the numbers against impeachment rise after this fiasco. Just think what a senate hearing will look like...... :o :o :o :o [/quote] Did Turley say that? I read that comment elsewhere. I saw about 10 or 15 minutes of the show yesterday. Thought it was a re-run of a Rachel Maddow show. One thing it did for certain is guarantee an acquittal in the Senate. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Mavigogun on 12/05/19 at 12:09:09 714344555243546B47544D260 wrote:
You can't in good faith opine over something you, by your own admission, are almost entirely ignorant to- be it a book you didn't read, a play you didn't attend, or a hearing you didn't watch. There was at least 20 minutes wasted counting votes to Republican Committee member motions made to disrupt the proceedings- one can't brows 10-15 minutes out of several hours of testimony and expect to have a meaningful impression. We could have a substantive exchange here. You've expressed a desire to elevate civil discourse, Mark. It would be great if you would act to realize that condition. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by eau de sauvage on 12/05/19 at 12:23:48 40415A5D52475B330 wrote:
He could afford to have Manafort as his man servant in the big house. @Mavigogun, it's 'perjure', although when Trump speaks it feel like he's purging his bowels through his face hole, so maybe you're more correct. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by raydawg on 12/05/19 at 13:36:35 043631202736211E322138530 wrote:
That was awesome...wasn't it ;D He was the only scholar that seemed relaxed, able to converse and dialogue, answering question without appearing to regurgitate preconceived talking points...... What a cluster fruck. Watch the numbers against impeachment rise after this fiasco. Just think what a senate hearing will look like...... :o :o :o :o [/quote] Did Turley say that? I read that comment elsewhere. I saw about 10 or 15 minutes of the show yesterday. Thought it was a re-run of a Rachel Maddow show. One thing it did for certain is guarantee an acquittal in the Senate. [/quote] Yes, he did. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Serowbot on 12/05/19 at 13:52:37 787962656A7F630B0 wrote:
Secret Service has to guard him for life anyway,... it would probably be cheaper and easier in a prison. No expensive hotel bills... |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by srinath on 12/05/19 at 14:56:33 3127302D35202D36420 wrote:
If he's to be guarded against 500+ of the sharpest career criminals that are alive right now, would the Secret service need more people or less people compared to a retirement village down in Florida by a golf course. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Serowbot on 12/05/19 at 15:00:41 The sharpest career criminals aren't in prison... Prison holds the dull ones... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by srinath on 12/05/19 at 15:04:21 5244534E56434E55210 wrote:
Well the dullest ones likely are in the lower ones, supermax is reserved for repeat and violent aren't they. So to rephrase, not mentally sharp, physically (as in violent and ready to repeat) I would think killing Trump, much like Killing Epstein would be a badge of cred for them too. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Serowbot on 12/05/19 at 15:15:26 Costa Rica has volunteered to build him his own private prison... Problem solved... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Eegore on 12/05/19 at 15:40:50 " I would think killing Trump, much like Killing Epstein would be a badge of cred for them too." Are you one of the people that think the video footage of Epstein is fake? |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by srinath on 12/05/19 at 16:18:28 6F4F4D45584F2A0 wrote:
No, I'm one of those who has no idea what any video is. I got no time to watch savage videos, gs500 videos, bolt videos, PT cruiser videos, F150 videos, audio crap videos, eating weeds videos and so on to bother with Epstein video. Dead = saved me a few million. If I can save more by making him more dead I'll be all for it. My interest in this whole impeachment crap is to just make jokes. Its got pretty confusing 1/2 way to Russia collusion non event. Refer back to my Epstein and Barr need to be in a Jail cell comment. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Eegore on 12/05/19 at 17:08:19 "No, I'm one of those who has no idea what any video is." Ok. Some people think the prison footage was faked and the Government killed Epstein. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by srinath on 12/05/19 at 17:14:13 5474767E6374110 wrote:
That I believe, the gubbaint also killed my MZ, back in 2011 it died on a ride on a new highway, by cracking the piston cos I didn't know it had a high compression, ran 87 in it, had some clogged carbs etc, and it died. AKA the gubbamint killed it, and I got the video to prove it. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Mavigogun on 12/05/19 at 19:27:02 36372C2B24312D450 wrote:
Duly noted. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/19 at 08:10:55 Details below but huge job gains last month, 3.5% unemployment, 3.1% wage growth. The Democrats are going to impeach the current President of this economy because he held up millions of dollars in aid destined for a corrupt country like Ukraine for a couple of weeks because former VP Biden's son was making millions in an industry which he didn't know $hit about, was clearly hired for access to Biden and in a country where the entire Russian collusion BS had it's origins? And Democrats think those key voters in the 5 or 6 key states that swung the election to Trump care so much about Ukraine they're willing to risk this economy and switch to Elizabeth Warren and her to plan to put their kids on Medicare? Good luck with that. The Department of Labor delivered its November jobs report at 8:30 a.m. ET Friday. Here were the main results from the report, compared to consensus data compiled by Bloomberg: •Change in non-farm payrolls: +266,000 vs. +180,000 expected and +156,000 in October •Unemployment rate: 3.5% vs. 3.6% expected and 3.6% in October •Average hourly earnings month over month: +0.2% vs. +0.3% expected and +0.4% in October •Average hourly earnings year over year: +3.1% vs. +3.0% expected and +3.2% in October The latest jobs report also included upward revisions to both September’s and October’s headline payroll figures. September’s change in total non-farm payrolls was revised up by 13,000 to 193,000, while October’s level was revised up by 28,000 to 156,000. These updates raised the three-month average of job gains to 205,000. At just 3.5%, the November unemployment rate matched September’s level for the lowest since 1969. The total labor force participation was nearly unchanged at 63.2%, just a hair below October’s 63.3%, which had reflected the largest share of the working population employed or looking for work since 2013. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by srinath on 12/06/19 at 09:07:11 576562737465724D61726B000 wrote:
And the low unemployment, wage gains, etc etc are after the gloom and doom from the NPR morons when illegals wearing ankle bracelets no less got deported form the chicken plant, and the trade war hand wringing bs. When clueless Idiots figure out that its because of those things, not in spite of, then Idiots of NPR gain a tiny sliver of credibility. In my field wages have begun to move (after 15+ yrs of being depressed) and more importantly real companies - not just middle men and sub contracting companies forwarding your resume - have begun to start calling people back in response to sending your resume/applying. Again the squeeze on fraud and abuse by H1 centric employers. So when the fools stop parroting the "high tech sector is affected etc etc" again 0 credibility. BTW my neighbor is a huge Trump hater (being black, gay and from NYC) and he told me he's been making more runs to BCA (bicycle corporation of America etc picking up bicycles and well as taking them stuff from other places) I tell him, huh, how many were doing a few yrs ago. He said - I've never heard of them. I said - yup, trade war special. He looked like someone had just slapped him. There was an Idiot on the radio again NPR show a few months ago who said all the jobs are import based where dock workers and all those people are hurting. Those fools should have pointed out, you can export the same amount and docks will be busier, or you can manufacture and dock workers can just work at the factory and there will be more and better jobs for them. These fools just let it pass. So millions of people are thinking no imports = no jobs. And when these fools get degrees in whatever crap, they carry this information forward. Making stuff will always create more jobs than importing. BCA assembles bicycles, tariff them till they start making all the parts, then I don't have to keep fixing the Chinese crap with more Chinese crap. BTW schools are making kids write essays on "benefits of sanctuary cities". I recommended he write about a bird sanctuary because that is real and has real benefits, this crap is fiction and he's not got as rich an imagination. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by batman on 12/06/19 at 09:15:17 Yes, the economy is so great, that since Trump took office the national debit has only increased by one trillion dollars ! |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by srinath on 12/06/19 at 09:37:44 5556435A5659030F370 wrote:
This is how our monetary system is setup. It guards against some crap, like great depression or something. In good times it grows because people buy savings bonds. In bad times it grows because govt borrows against it for its expenses. Think of this as the savings account where pitiful interest is paid, in fact counting inflation in real terms its negative interest. Obama grew it in bad times, Bush grew it in bad times, Clinton grew it in good and bad times etc etc. What is slightly more interesting is - china's part of that number has dropped a little, but remember that % grew most of the last 2 decades. As in, they're loaning us less $$$ relative to what americans are. Good sign, it means americans are better off than before, Chinese are worse off than before. Or some like that. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/19 at 09:43:05 Not saying its perfect Batman, no doubt about that. Does the federal government spend too much? Hell yes. What percent of the budget is mandatory vs discretionary? Last I heard, it was a little over 30%. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/19 at 09:53:03 57564D4A45504C240 wrote:
This is how our monetary system is setup. It guards against some crap, like great depression or something. In good times it grows because people buy savings bonds. In bad times it grows because govt borrows against it for its expenses. Think of this as the savings account where pitiful interest is paid, in fact counting inflation in real terms its negative interest. Obama grew it in bad times, Bush grew it in bad times, Clinton grew it in good and bad times etc etc. What is slightly more interesting is - china's part of that number has dropped a little, but remember that % grew most of the last 2 decades. As in, they're loaning us less $$$ relative to what americans are. Good sign, it means americans are better off than before, Chinese are worse off than before. Or some like that. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] Definitely some truth in that Sri. When I hear news stories where 'journalist' go out and find someone who is complaining that Trump's tariffs are hurting their business, I wonder what the news stations are going to do if Warren gets elected and elements of the Green New Deal are enacted? Just where exactly is that magical place where all these billions of dollars are going to come from? We're going to trash the entire fossil fuel industry and the millions and millions of individual transactions every day that rely on the consistency of supply and price with zero negative impact on an economy with so many variables, they are impossible to understand? |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Mavigogun on 12/06/19 at 09:58:22 4B797E6F68796E517D6E771C0 wrote:
There's been a lot of analysis of such numbers, including a view of economic trends since the economic collapse of 2007. The unemployment figure must be considered in light of what it represents- a shrinking workforce, as a considerable portion of the workforce has left the market. As with any trend statistic, by curtailing the period, most any narrative can be advanced. The Labor Force Participation Rate is about 3% lower than the pre-rescission stabilized rate, and 4% under the 2000 high. Of those employed, At-Will employment laws have combined with dynamic staffing practices, resulting in work insecurity and the requirement for multiple employment sources. The year's wage growth started on target, reaching 4% in the second quarter- then falling over a full point before being buoyed by tepid holiday hiring. Keep in mind wage growth lags far below the pre-recession trend line; combined with inflation, this amounts to effective purchase power loss- especially for the bottom half of earners, subject to radically inflating rents, and priced out of the housing market. That said, the Trump Administration is only fractionally responsible for these outcomes, good and bad. The tax cut stimulus proportionately impacted the highest earners, who mostly used the opportunity to buy back stock instead of capital investments; the consumer spending bump was transient. Coupled with trade war losses, adjustment of what a previous Fed Chair once labeled "irrational exuberance", and growing policy liabilities, the direction of Administrative impact is uncertain. Markets aren't big on uncertainty, as this week's response to Trump's suggestion that his Trade War with China will likely drag out beyond his first term testifies. The Democrats are going to impeach the current President of this economy because he held up millions of dollars in aid destined for a corrupt country like Ukraine for a couple of weeks... The preview of articles of impeachment include obstruction of justice in the Independent Counsel Inquiry, and bribery, among others. Aid to Ukraine was only released after the plot was discovered. Review of testimony and record before Congress has demonstrated clear violations of the US Constitution by the President. The details are beyond the scope of easy address in a post such as this. ...because former VP Biden's son was making millions in an industry which he didn't know $hit about, was clearly hired for access to Biden and in a country where the entire Russian collusion BS had it's origins? According to US intelligence, Putin was the motive force behind Russian interference in our elections. The Ukrainian Conspiracy Theory has been thoroughly debunked, also by our intelligence agencies, with reports at the disposal of the President. Without doubt, the employment of Hunter Biden was entirely about access to or currying favor with former Vice President Joe Biden. The practice should be illegal; sadly, it is not. Were there basis in law for taking action against the Bidens, the FBI would have been deployed to investigate, charges would have been filed. There was not. The President's acts- personally, and via his personal agents -were a violation of law and the Constitution, and are subject to impeachment and prosecution. The total labor force participation was nearly unchanged at 63.2%, just a hair below October’s 63.3%, which had reflected the largest share of the working population employed or looking for work since 2013. Examination of the zig-zaging Labor Participation Rate shows a mean level in close proximity of where it stabilized around late 2013- which was the bottom of a very long decent; while the peeks and troughs are still within less than half of a percent of that level, the recent high has been followed by the beginning of another lean down, and should be expected to continue as pre-Christmas highers leave the workforce. The argument that voters should only care about impeachment based on their transient economic comfort estimates that we US citizens are willing to sell our democracy, Constitution and all- and is one we all should reject. Clearly a portion of the Republican Party are banking on the electorate opting into complicity with Trump administration crimes, while others are leaving the party in disgust. The Democrats have eschewed your calculus, Mark, putting the Republic above Party- and putting their faith in the integrity of the majority of the citizenry. For all our sake, I hope they are right. If they are wrong, you will be that much closer to your expressed desire to see our Union fall. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Serowbot on 12/06/19 at 10:03:15 Cherry picked economic numbers don't tell the whole story,... Polls show people aren't feeling the tax cuts, or economic boost. They are feeling anxiety over healthcare costs, stagnant wages, and dwindling middle class. Job numbers are good because many people are working 2 and 3 jobs, often with no benefits or retirement. These are the people that expected more from Trump and are disappointed in him giving himself and corporate America a big tax cut that they and their children will pay for. MAGA, so far, has been very Trumpcentric... |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by srinath on 12/06/19 at 10:15:44 People aint feeling anxiety, people (Me) is busy beating down recruiters who're not offering up better terms and $$$. Just my observation, the H1 fraud and abuse being removed from the market = better job prospects for IT workers like me. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Mavigogun on 12/06/19 at 10:16:29 546661707766714E627168030 wrote:
The suggestion that these are fabricated accounts is baldly false- reports are many and diverse. Prominently here in Houston, the engineering firm Schlumberger is being forced to relocate manufacturing to facilities being developed in Italy to assume what was US capacity. This is far from the only story of lost jobs, lost business. There are merchants confronted by pre-tarrif stock orders who are now stuck with inventory; priced out of the market, those orders represent existential loss. A little good-faith research will reveal that the cause for doubt you suggest, Mark, is baseless. We're going to trash the entire fossil fuel industry and the millions and millions of individual transactions every day that rely on the consistency of supply and price with zero negative impact on an economy with so many variables, they are impossible to understand? It has become apparent to even the fossil fuel industry that the "trashing" of the entire environment amounts to a liability rivaling benefits. The entire heavy marine transport industry is on the cusp of re-tooling to meet reduced sulfur emission standards in the coming year. Transitions are not immediate. Unknown complexity is a challenge we can and must face. There will be negative impacts. There will be positive impacts. These are not "impossible to understand"; we see some of the solutions and consequences now, enough to start planning and building the path. Like our mission to the moon, our determination was the deciding factor- not what we didn't know at the outset, or the complexity of the task. We have hard work to do- and those of us who will be around in the coming decades and generations can not afford to indulge your excuses. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by srinath on 12/06/19 at 18:21:38 Media is stupid. They cherry pick stuff all the time. The chicken factory in Missouri where a few 100 illegals got deported, classic example, several 1000 turned up for a job fair they held the weekend after and all of em said they applied to there, never got a response - NPR simply never aired it. They think Junta is said as Hunta - sadly that means they are pretty much stupid, all you can learn from the news (any standard commercial station) if they mention a city - say Cleveland a few times and say factory closing a few times - get onto face book, youtube, craigslist and look for yourself. Maybe a meteor hit it, maybe a tidal wave, maybe a car called a tide and a car called a meteor hit each other in the middle of town. Main stream media was called Lame stream media in 2006-7 for cheering on the housing bubble. Very good reason behind it. They're flakier than a bowl of cereal. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by raydawg on 12/06/19 at 18:48:46 77766D6A65706C040 wrote:
Again....to save energy, I will correct you with facts and truth. YOU ARE A LIAR, AND A FRUCKING BHOLE IDIOT WHO KNOWS ONLY UTTERANCE OF LIES AND TALKING POINTS OF OTHER BHOLES, RACIST,SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIA..........DEPLORABLES! We just added one more year of viable living, to the planet earth, and the polar ice caps, and polar bears, thanks to my energy saving effort....darn, Obama's BIG house just ate all that year up..... :-[ :-[ :-[ |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Eegore on 12/06/19 at 18:58:16 "Job numbers are good because many people are working 2 and 3 jobs, often with no benefits or retirement." So this is a big issue that is repeatedly dodged when economists ask the White House about how they get their numbers. The labor statistics support it, economists predicted it, people say they are actively doing it, but for some reason it just isn't in the "numbers" when job status is brought up. As for lack of job issued retirement, this is common even in very positive economic trends. I would dodge pensions like there's no tomorrow. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by srinath on 12/07/19 at 06:01:39 022220283522470 wrote:
So let me first deal with the italicized part. More jobs per person does not lower the unemployment rate. Unemployment rolls are used to calculate this. Paying unemployment $$ = unemployment, now if your unemployment runs out cos you've not found a job in so long (like in 04 and again in 07 for me) then you don't get counted. But that's not happening now. 2 and 3 jobs per person is more reflective of labor force participation rate. That is a bit lower than the last time we hit 3.5% unemployment. So what does that mean. That is calculated by a different source. It is a survey of people. In 2000 we hit 3.7 and the participation rate was 67%. Both are historic numbers. Now we have 3.5 and 63% - you may claim there is more "discouraged" people. However that could also be inaccurate. You definitely have a 20+ yr older set of people. This number is perfectly mildly optimistic but if we see this number rise along with a corresponding rise in unemployment, that = concern. Otherwise, it just reflects people aging and retiring. Now the lack of pensions - this is a trend, a near 40 yr trend in fact. Pensions are getting replaced with 401k It may be better, may not be. However what I don't agree with is, bringing in more workers due to the lower labor force participation rate, that would cause the people who have 2 and 3 jobs to just have 1. Soon enough, if the economy retreats, you have more unemployment. Now with high number of 2 and 3 job people, and low unemployment, we could well see a recession with nearly no change in the unemployment rate. I also predict the labor force participation rate will continue to fall as people age. Good sign. Retired people are retired for a reason - they're happier retired, would rather not work. This is why I think brining in foreign workers to compensate for an aging population isn't the smart idea, learning how to cover that gap with multiple jobs, pulling unemployable and marginalized people into the work force, etc etc is where the smart ideas are. That allows for unemployment to stay super low, and even in a recession, never rise much. If you have a few million that work 2 jobs, when the economy loses a million jobs, the unemployment rate may not move at all. Excellent way to have a recession. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by WebsterMark on 12/12/19 at 11:03:22 As Spock would say: "Interesting....." “I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak [at the meeting], where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland said in his revised testimony. Yermak, however, told Time that he had no recollection of any such conversation. “Gordon and I were never alone together. We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out,” he said on the Warsaw meeting. “I remember – everything is fine with my memory – we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about.” |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by raydawg on 12/12/19 at 12:07:07 Mark....if the democrats give the senate a chance to hold a trial, and they don't give it a FULL TRIAL, they will have blown a golden opportunity to call EVERYONE to testify under oath..... We have seen the democrats/liberals hand, we have seen them try for 3 years, to get Trump.....and nothing to show for it, nada. Now, the republicans can be in control of the ebb and flow, the narrative, the witness list, etc, and have it all come out under oath in front of the American people.... If they blow this chance....then they get what they deserve. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by raydawg on 12/12/19 at 12:28:01 Biden just said he will not appear at a senate hearing on impeachment..... Would that be obstruction......???? |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by Serowbot on 12/12/19 at 13:22:57 Calling on him to testify would be frivolous... He would have no pertinent information. Just muckraking... It would be hard for Senate Pub's to object after all they the witnesses they let pass.... |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment boomerang Post by raydawg on 12/12/19 at 13:50:03 6E786F726A7F72691D0 wrote:
This is why we need a senate trial, where they are all under oath, or refuse a subpoena, no more muckraking.....FACTS, or perjury, or obstruction...... The argument IS Trump was concerned about Hunters involvement in Ukraine, he never said, like Schiff said, "Find me dirt" Therefore, it is a piece of the puzzle that needs to be investigated.... Regardless of what you, or I, think....... I would love to see EVERYONE under oath, and answering questions from BOTH sides, even Trump..... What are you afraid of? I just listened to Alan Dershowitz, what a scholar......a life long democrat, Hillary supporter, and Obama voter, talk about this stuff....a brilliant man, I am sure you find fault with him too...... ::) |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |