It actually looks like the congress may have decided to conduct business in a logical way, do what you can agree on and tackle the more contentious issues later.
Of course out contentious dotard isn't happy with that and still wants to threaten to take his ball and go home.
News reports indicate that a two year spending bill which is effectively clean has bilateral support and would leave the contentious issues for another day.
A spending bill is simply supposed to provide the funds to run day to day operations, and while some elements of how you spend the money are contentious, those should be worked out in the appropriation and authorization bills.
It allows for an orderly process and it was fairly radical when it was decided to hold it hostage to certain demands back in the Clinton presidency.
It didn't work but the republicans tried it again in 2013, once again unsuccessfully and then we saw the one real day shut down over the dreamers as the democrats gave it a shot.
Its not a good tactic since, well it hasn't worked yet.
Its hard to argue that shutting down everything is a worthwhile strategy to get a particular issue.
Also, if the issue is so contentious, its very unlikely that the other side would simply capitulate and give in.
The dotard continues to bluster and say he needs his demands met but I think he has in fact become more of a comedy routine than anything.
He has people cheering him on but not sure too many really want to be riding his coattails at this point.
He may take off the coat.
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
What Goes Up.....
The stock market has had a long run that actually started shortly after the financial crisis and rose from pretty bleak numbers to record after record highs.
We seem to have hit a speed bump.
The thing about stocks is that they aren't simply based on the facts, they rely upon human emotion.
People react to what they see and make decisions.
Most people react in very similar ways, so once selling starts it becomes a bit contagious.
Remember its a lot easier to sell than it is to buy, you don't have to have any money first.
Each day of losses inspires more sellers and therefore more losses and more sellers, etc. etc.
It will of course stop.
When depends once again on sentiment and we may see short term plateaus as buyers test the market.
Once it actually bottoms we should see a period of continued growth, but it may take a long time to return to its prior levels.
Its a story as old as time.
We seem to have hit a speed bump.
The thing about stocks is that they aren't simply based on the facts, they rely upon human emotion.
People react to what they see and make decisions.
Most people react in very similar ways, so once selling starts it becomes a bit contagious.
Remember its a lot easier to sell than it is to buy, you don't have to have any money first.
Each day of losses inspires more sellers and therefore more losses and more sellers, etc. etc.
It will of course stop.
When depends once again on sentiment and we may see short term plateaus as buyers test the market.
Once it actually bottoms we should see a period of continued growth, but it may take a long time to return to its prior levels.
Its a story as old as time.
Monday, February 5, 2018
Good Game, So-So Ads
We got to see a game with end to end action and as it should be the ads were simply in the way.
Of course they cost a lot and of all of them I think the one for tide was the most clever, but when the game is as good as this one is, who cares?
Understanding of course that a lot of people who are only super bowl party fans got to see this, it may have swayed some of them to be more interested in the football.
The game set lots of offensive records and then had the surprise twist in the fourth quarter where the Eagles actually derailed the expected Brady comeback.
Congrats to the Eagles on a great performance although you have to wonder how two teams which have been know for their defense were unable to make any notable stops, except for that last one.
Also a very gutsy call to go for the TD at the end of the first half, it certainly paid off in the end but imagine the risk the coach took if it had failed.
Of course it was the same call, good or bad and for once the risky choice was rewarded.
We have determined one thing for sure.
Foles is a better receiver than Brady.
Nice to see an NFC East team beat the Patriots again, even if it was the wrong one.
Congrats Eagles!
Of course they cost a lot and of all of them I think the one for tide was the most clever, but when the game is as good as this one is, who cares?
Understanding of course that a lot of people who are only super bowl party fans got to see this, it may have swayed some of them to be more interested in the football.
The game set lots of offensive records and then had the surprise twist in the fourth quarter where the Eagles actually derailed the expected Brady comeback.
Congrats to the Eagles on a great performance although you have to wonder how two teams which have been know for their defense were unable to make any notable stops, except for that last one.
Also a very gutsy call to go for the TD at the end of the first half, it certainly paid off in the end but imagine the risk the coach took if it had failed.
Of course it was the same call, good or bad and for once the risky choice was rewarded.
We have determined one thing for sure.
Foles is a better receiver than Brady.
Nice to see an NFC East team beat the Patriots again, even if it was the wrong one.
Congrats Eagles!
Sunday, February 4, 2018
Non Partisan Government
If you think about Government and politics you realize the two are very different.
Politics is about getting elected.
Government is about enforcing the laws.
Both have always existed in most societies but we see our current administration confusing the two.
Government in this country has been, to the extent possible non-political.
Laws were passed prohibiting Federal Workers from participating in political activities.
Of course there was a time when patronage and political party affiliation were more of a factor.
That is why the laws were passed.
Government continues on no matter who is elected although to the extent laws change the implementation changes.
You hear talk about the deep state which is simply a way to talk about the bureaucracy which exist in all Governments. You could also call it the civil service.
It isn't partisan although of course individuals in it have political views.
We now see the dotard and his ilk deciding that if you aren't partisan for me you are partisan for them.
This ignores the tradition in this country of a Government which is neither.
Getting elected doesn't change the Government, passing laws does.
Politics is about getting elected.
Government is about enforcing the laws.
Both have always existed in most societies but we see our current administration confusing the two.
Government in this country has been, to the extent possible non-political.
Laws were passed prohibiting Federal Workers from participating in political activities.
Of course there was a time when patronage and political party affiliation were more of a factor.
That is why the laws were passed.
Government continues on no matter who is elected although to the extent laws change the implementation changes.
You hear talk about the deep state which is simply a way to talk about the bureaucracy which exist in all Governments. You could also call it the civil service.
It isn't partisan although of course individuals in it have political views.
We now see the dotard and his ilk deciding that if you aren't partisan for me you are partisan for them.
This ignores the tradition in this country of a Government which is neither.
Getting elected doesn't change the Government, passing laws does.
Saturday, February 3, 2018
Memo Con
What would be the purpose of a committee issuing a memo about an inquiry it was engaged in, that was written by its chairman about an issue that it hasn't acted upon?
Obviously a political purpose and possibly a justification for certain actions by the dotard.
The memo argues that the basis for an investigation was a dossier prepared by someone who was opposed to the Trump campaign.
That is not proven as the only cause, but so far the dossier is still neither proven or unproven, and some of its allegations are quite serious.
The argument being made is that the FBI and the Justice Department acted on political motivations, which is unproven, even if they had a preference in the election.
We know that the investigation has actually uncovered a number of questionable activities and has led to a few indictments for obstruction.
We also know that the memo is incomplete and other details are being blocked by the chairman who released this one.
It is designed to cater to those who already feel that the investigation is politically motivated and allow the dotard to cite it in any future firings.
Its an example of a con game where two parties confirm the positions of each other based on a bunch of false or twisted circumstances.
Just a con.
Obviously a political purpose and possibly a justification for certain actions by the dotard.
The memo argues that the basis for an investigation was a dossier prepared by someone who was opposed to the Trump campaign.
That is not proven as the only cause, but so far the dossier is still neither proven or unproven, and some of its allegations are quite serious.
The argument being made is that the FBI and the Justice Department acted on political motivations, which is unproven, even if they had a preference in the election.
We know that the investigation has actually uncovered a number of questionable activities and has led to a few indictments for obstruction.
We also know that the memo is incomplete and other details are being blocked by the chairman who released this one.
It is designed to cater to those who already feel that the investigation is politically motivated and allow the dotard to cite it in any future firings.
Its an example of a con game where two parties confirm the positions of each other based on a bunch of false or twisted circumstances.
Just a con.
Friday, February 2, 2018
Trickle Down or Crumbs, Whats the Difference?
The whole republican agenda is based on the theory of trickle down economics, encourage the entrepreneurs and everyone eventually benefits.
We know the recent tax law provided significantly more benefits to business and wealthy people, and reduced and temporary benefits to the rest of us.
It is also going to significantly increase the deficit unless fairly massive cuts are made to entitlement programs.
I would be curious with the attacks on health coverage we have already seen and the likely rise in premiums if paychecks will even go up as the tax savings meet the health insurance increases.
I'm sure it varies person to person and company to company, and some will opt for less coverage but this isn't a feast.
It is more like the crumbs referred to by the democratic minority leader.
The tax law wasn't based on being fair, and any reductions it made will have to be paid for by taxpayers either in lost benefits or increased national debt.
These are the sort of policies that eventually lead to a recession, as you see the present increase traded for future payments.
We saw this with the artificial housing boom that led to the financial crisis we haven't fully recovered from as we pursued a republican agenda of creating more homeowners.
Its the same type of faulty math they like to use all the time, not understanding how the character of the person is more important than what they own or have.
Hey crumbs can be tasty, better than the sort of stuff that might trickle down in this administration.
We know the recent tax law provided significantly more benefits to business and wealthy people, and reduced and temporary benefits to the rest of us.
It is also going to significantly increase the deficit unless fairly massive cuts are made to entitlement programs.
I would be curious with the attacks on health coverage we have already seen and the likely rise in premiums if paychecks will even go up as the tax savings meet the health insurance increases.
I'm sure it varies person to person and company to company, and some will opt for less coverage but this isn't a feast.
It is more like the crumbs referred to by the democratic minority leader.
The tax law wasn't based on being fair, and any reductions it made will have to be paid for by taxpayers either in lost benefits or increased national debt.
These are the sort of policies that eventually lead to a recession, as you see the present increase traded for future payments.
We saw this with the artificial housing boom that led to the financial crisis we haven't fully recovered from as we pursued a republican agenda of creating more homeowners.
Its the same type of faulty math they like to use all the time, not understanding how the character of the person is more important than what they own or have.
Hey crumbs can be tasty, better than the sort of stuff that might trickle down in this administration.
Thursday, February 1, 2018
Fairness
What is economic fairness?
If you subscribe to laisez-faire economics, the results are pretty much fair no matter how they come out.
It works our pretty well for the winners and not so good for the losers.
That was largely the state of affairs when the industrial revolution started and generally the outcome wasn't pretty as rich industrialists dominated and many people lived in sub-standard housing or company towns where they eked out a meagre existence.
We went through a long period of reform where certain things were added to make things a little fairer, such as universal public education, public hospitals, unions, rules about the environment and worker safety as well as programs for the unemployed and the elderly.
It is hard to imagine life without those things now, although some do.
They are envious of the days when an enterprising person could rape the environment, oppress some workers and get rich.
Of course we see a lot of people getting rich and richer as wealth is becoming shared less equally.
Is this fair?
What is the fair share a resident of this country deserves?
It is the question that divides conservatives and progressives.
It doesn't have a simple answer.
If you subscribe to laisez-faire economics, the results are pretty much fair no matter how they come out.
It works our pretty well for the winners and not so good for the losers.
That was largely the state of affairs when the industrial revolution started and generally the outcome wasn't pretty as rich industrialists dominated and many people lived in sub-standard housing or company towns where they eked out a meagre existence.
We went through a long period of reform where certain things were added to make things a little fairer, such as universal public education, public hospitals, unions, rules about the environment and worker safety as well as programs for the unemployed and the elderly.
It is hard to imagine life without those things now, although some do.
They are envious of the days when an enterprising person could rape the environment, oppress some workers and get rich.
Of course we see a lot of people getting rich and richer as wealth is becoming shared less equally.
Is this fair?
What is the fair share a resident of this country deserves?
It is the question that divides conservatives and progressives.
It doesn't have a simple answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)