[y66]

Guest post from Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:

Quote

It’s hard to imagine a better quick story summing up the Donald Trump administration than the one that broke Sunday night about a bill the White House was preparing to, as Jonathan Swan at Axios put it, “declare America’s abandonment of fundamental World Trade Organization rules” by giving the president authority to unilaterally break those rules.

Let’s see …

The policy is nuts; virtually all experts, both in trade and in foreign policy, believe global trade is very good for the U.S.
In fact, according to Swan’s reporting, almost everyone in the White House thinks the bill “is unrealistic or unworkable.”
Why does it exist, then? Because Trump ordered it, and sometimes the best way to mollify a president is to give him what he wants — very slowly, and without anything actually happening. Apparently this thing has been kicking around for months.

The bill has virtually no chance whatsoever of being enacted into law.

The draft bill has a title, the United States Fair and Reciprocal Tariff Act, which yields an acronym that had every Twitter wag making fart jokes Sunday night.

On that last point, political scientist Brendan Nyhan made the crucial point: There are actually two perfectly plausible explanations. The ridiculous title could be just another sign of an administration that routinely botches basic tasks; after all, official White House communications have been plagued by typos ever since Trump took office, and just a few days ago a prankster claiming to be New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez managed to get a call through to the president. But it’s equally possible it was a malicious effort to undermine the policy by someone in the White House or an executive-branch agency; all administrations leak, but none before this have leaked so often with information that looked this bad for the president.

So to summarize: The president ordered something inept; he’s not going to get what he wanted; and everyone in the administration has egg on their faces over it.

What’s even more amazing about this is that Trump seems to be oblivious to all of it. For all we know, he really thinks that North Korea is giving up its nuclear weapons (it isn’t), the border wall is under construction (nope), and that he’s going to get his Space Force (seems extremely unlikely, even if Trump thinks wars against the Pentagon bureaucracy are good and easy to win).

He remains such a weak president that he has to select a Supreme Court nominee from a list supplied by an interest group. But he doesn’t appear to realize it — and he certainly isn’t demonstrating any ability to change the situation. Meanwhile, he’ll just keep ordering people to do things that (most of the time at least) will never happen, while the few competent people he’s somehow managed to put in place will continue to do things in his name whether he likes it or not. I could add a fart joke, but the whole thing really isn’t very funny.

[Winstonm]

In Cohen's interview with George Stephanopoulos he said he is ending his joint defense deal with Dennison. That is the normal first step in a plea bargain arrangement. We can only hope.

[y66]

Staring down the abyss (again)? From Your Credit Card Will Pay for the Next Recession by the NYT Editorial Board:

Quote

Every three months, a select group of Federal Reserve officials gets together to guess where the federal funds rate is headed. That’s the interest rate banks charge one another for overnight loans. It’s important because it’s an economic cue ball, creating a knock-on effect for other interest rates.

The Fed forecasters’ median prediction is that the federal funds rate is headed to 3.4 percent by the end of 2020 from the current 1.9 percent. This means you’ll be paying more to get a mortgage, a new-car loan or to carry a balance on your credit card. How much more? Possibly enough to absorb whatever extra income you might be enjoying from lower tax rates or higher wages.

The Fed is picking our pockets because, to prevent the economy from overheating, it is legally required to keep inflation in check by raising rates. But the task has been made more urgent by the Republicans’ $1.5 trillion tax giveaway to the wealthy and corporations, which effectively threw gasoline onto a very hot barbecue.

“It makes the Fed’s job more difficult all around because what you’re getting is a stimulus at the very wrong moment,” a noted former Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, said in a recent appearance at the American Enterprise Institute. Economists at the Fed would never have chosen such a policy. But in the G.O.P., tax cuts aren’t so much science as they are theology, even if the faithful have to be sacrificed.

Trump supporters who benefited the least from the Republican tax cut — wage workers, farmers and anyone else not in the top 10 percent of earners — will now have to pay the bulk of the bill to mitigate the damage it caused to the economy.

You can see this in credit card debt, which has crested at $1 trillion, now at an average interest rate of about 16.8 percent. Credit card interest rates are tied to the prime rate, which is tied to — you guessed it — the federal funds rate. Chase, for instance, adds from 11.74 percent to 20.49 percent to the prime rate, creating a maximum credit card rate of 29.99 percent. For those consumers who carry a balance (about a third don’t), and a card that automatically adjusts (not all do), the difference can mean hundreds of dollars in extra interest costs annually. In one 2016 study, the credit reporting company TransUnion said rising rates affect 92 million consumers, 9.3 million of them severely.

And rates are now rising at a time when household debt reached a record $13.21 trillion in the first quarter. Household debt service payments as a percentage of disposable income hit 5.9 percent in the first quarter, according to the Federal Reserve, a figure not reached since just before the Great Recession. Average credit card debt per borrower is about $5,700 and growing at a rate of 4.7 percent while wages are growing at about 3 percent. That can’t continue forever.

There’s an anomaly in an economy that is supposedly running flat out: Many families still haven’t recovered the wealth they lost in the financial collapse. A sobering analysis by Deutsche Bank concludes that more families than ever have zero or negative wealth, excluding their homes. (Home ownership has fallen to 64.2 percent of households, from a peak of 69 percent in 2004.) Despite high stock prices and record home prices, household net worth since 2007 has decreased for all income groups — except the top 10 percent. Net worth for the richest Americans is up an average of 27 percent. For the middle class, what remains of it, wealth has decreased 20 percent to 30 percent in real terms — their share of the pie has shrunk.

Similarly, a recent St. Louis Fed study of generational wealth concluded that the very families whose wealth should be growing are falling behind. “We believe many families in the youngest cohort we studied here — respondents born in the 1980s — are at substantial risk of accumulating less wealth over their life spans than the members of previous generations,” the report said.

That’s an astonishing conclusion in an economy that, as President Trump insists, has never been better. Certainly, it’s never been better for the wealthiest 10 percent of families, who now own about 75 percent of the nation’s total household wealth, as opposed to less than 35 percent in the 1970s. Or for the nation’s richest 0.1 percent, who now own as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, according to Deutsche Bank. For the other 90 percent, the ability to build wealth rests on the ability to save, which they can’t do if interest rates are rising and eating into their earnings. The personal savings rate, at 2.8 percent, is heading in the wrong direction.

Raising rates now, perversely, gives the Fed a monetary tool with which they would be able to fight the next recession — by cutting those rates. And that may come sooner than expected. By 2020, when Mr. Bernanke believes any stimulative effect of the tax cuts will have run its course, we will be facing what he called a Wile E. Coyote economy, after that overeager cartoon character.

The overstimulated American economy will run off the cliff on its own momentum, Mr. Bernanke fears. That will leave the nation with an enormous federal deficit and not much fiscal room to maneuver. Having been essentially made to pay for the tax cuts for the richest Americans, the rest of the nation will be staring down the abyss, too.

[y66]

[PassedOut]

So now the big issue seems to be whether or not the new Supreme Court will reverse Roe v. Wade, and lots of evangelical Christians seem to be in favor of that result.
On the other hand, the bible only mentions abortion one time -- as the appropriate solution to the pregnancy of an unfaithful wife: The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

Quote

²⁶ The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. ²⁷ If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.

Ah, religion -- useful when it supports one's own beliefs, ignored when it doesn't.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2018-July-03, 13:39, said:

So now the big issue seems to be whether or not the new Supreme Court will reverse Roe v. Wade, and lots of evangelical Christians seem to be in favor of that result.
On the other hand, the bible only mentions abortion one time -- as the appropriate solution to the pregnancy of an unfaithful wife: The Test for an Unfaithful Wife


Ah, religion -- useful when it supports one's own beliefs, ignored when it doesn't.

I have often told Becky of the many useful thinks that I learn on this site. I will keep this in mind.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2018-June-29, 21:40, said:

Do you have a better idea? Seriously, I am listening.

No, I don't.

[Winstonm]

Reality check #24601

Quote

The news over the past few weeks might make you think that places such as my hometown — McAllen, Tex., in the Rio Grande Valley — are under siege from waves of undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers, a crisis of lawlessness so extreme that drastic measures are needed. Tearing children from their parents, or, when that proves too unpopular, corralling families in tent cities. Then there's the $25 billion wall that's needed to safeguard the United States from the threat of being overrun.

The view from down here is different. In a 2018 rating of the 100 most dangerous cities in the United States based on FBI data, no border cities — not San Diego, not Texas cities such as Brownsville, Laredo or El Paso — appeared even in the top 60. McAllen's crime rate was lower than Houston's or Dallas's, according to Texas Monthly in 2015. The Cato Institute's research consistently shows that immigrants, both legal and undocumented, are markedly less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans.

Look down, look down
Don't look them in the eye

[johnu]

Winstonm, on 2018-July-02, 19:35, said:

In Cohen's interview with George Stephanopoulos he said he is ending his joint defense deal with Dennison. That is the normal first step in a plea bargain arrangement. We can only hope.

There is less to see here than you might expect. The limited joint defense agreement was put together by the judge to facilitate and speed the review of seized documents from Cohen and client Dennison. Now that all the documents are close to being classified as privileged or not privileged, there will be no need for a joint defensive effort.

That said, the possibility of a plea bargain agreement with Cohen seems more likely based on his recent public statements.

[johnu]

Another day, another WTF story

Migrant Women Reportedly Kept From Speaking To Kirstjen Nielsen As She Toured Facility

Nielsen is Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and was appointed by Dennison and one of the highest ranking members of the administration. Why would the facility owners deliberately try to keep prisoners away from Nielsen who presumably is in overall charge of the facilities. Plausible deniability???

[ggwhiz]

One week on and 6 of 2,053 kids have been reunited with their parents according to the governments own figures. WTF?

[barmar]

PassedOut, on 2018-July-03, 13:39, said:

On the other hand, the bible only mentions abortion one time -- as the appropriate solution to the pregnancy of an unfaithful wife:

Pro-lifers consider fetuses to be people and abortion to be murder, so it violates the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".

This is why the question of "when does life begin" is considered critical in abortion debates.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2018-July-04, 23:12, said:

Pro-lifers consider fetuses to be people and abortion to be murder, so it violates the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".

This is why the question of "when does life begin" is considered critical in abortion debates.

And the bible clearly indicates that this is not the case by the example given

[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-July-05, 02:20, said:

And the bible clearly indicates that this is not the case by the example given

The main pro-life proponent is the Catholic church, and Catholics don't put as much faith in the infallibility of the bible as some Protestant sects do. In reality, I doubt any pro-lifer cares what the bible says; they aren't thinking but viscerally reacting.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-July-05, 02:20, said:

And the bible clearly indicates that this is not the case by the example given

Obviously the Bible also admits exceptions, since it also considers war and capital punishment justified in some circumstances. But I think it would be quite a stretch to consider "I'm too young to have a baby" or "it will interfere with my professional life" to be appropriate justification for murdering an innocent fetus.

I'm pro-choice, this is just Devil's Advocacy.

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2018-July-05, 07:32, said:

The main pro-life proponent is the Catholic church, and Catholics don't put as much faith in the infallibility of the bible as some Protestant sects do. In reality, I doubt any pro-lifer cares what the bible says; they aren't thinking but viscerally reacting.

Bizarrely in Northern Ireland the Catholic party (Sinn Fein) is in favour of more liberal abortion laws than the main Protestant one (DUP).

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2018-July-05, 07:32, said:

The main pro-life proponent is the Catholic church, and Catholics don't put as much faith in the infallibility of the bible as some Protestant sects do. In reality, I doubt any pro-lifer cares what the bible says; they aren't thinking but viscerally reacting.

The bridge player that cashes his aces before they get ruffed away is working under a certain set of assumptions. Not always (or even often?) correct, this practice is both reasoned AND visceral. My POV is that if the foetus is viable at "birth" then murder is a consideration because the loss of a human "life" was a likely result of the procedure.
That is my reasoned approach and while not particularly visceral, the daughter that I lost to spontaneous abortion (placental infarction) did not bother me and ended up providing lives for my two youngest sons. (My wife wanted a boy and girl but I went for the big V after the 3rd baby arrived.) Reasoned, visceral or just selfish?

[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on 2018-July-05, 09:51, said:

The bridge player that cashes his aces before they get ruffed away is working under a certain set of assumptions. Not always (or even often?) correct, this practice is both reasoned AND visceral. My POV is that if the foetus is viable at "birth" then murder is a consideration because the loss of a human "life" was a likely result of the procedure.
That is my reasoned approach and while not particularly visceral, the daughter that I lost to spontaneous abortion (placental infarction) did not bother me and ended up providing lives for my two youngest sons. (My wife wanted a boy and girl but I went for the big V after the 3rd baby arrived.) Reasoned, visceral or just selfish?

The entire legal debate about pro-life/pro-choice concerns viability. But when did the religious ever let reason stand in the way of enjoying a good gut-wrenching story?

[Al_U_Card]

I suppose faith-based reasoning presents the greatest barrier to a common-ground of understanding. It does help identify those that prefer wishful thinking as a motivational source but saving the world, espousing a personal preference or supporting a favorite son (home-team etc.) are all sides of a similar multi-facetted die. Lumping adversaries into categories only diminishes the discourse. Making the "avoid" list of prosyletizers of all kinds is more a badge of honor than a problem as one is unlikely to pierce the illusory carapace that impedes their contributing to the solution rather than exacerbating the problem.

[Winstonm]

There are certain individuals with whom you can reason - these a generally the ones who have some kind of reasoning for their actions. I voted for Dennison because I wanted fewer Mexicans to cross the border, for example.

At the same time, there is a significant amount of Dennison personality cultists with whom reason is a sign of weakness - this group is better treated like zombies, to be isolated and avoided until they consume each other.