OT: Damn Russians Cost Comey his Job

[NorCalRuss]

4 hours ago, BigDrop said:

Just watch television and read the news. Trump lied through his teeth about Comey and now it is all coming out.  He fired Comey because he demanded blind loyalty and Comey would not give it; also because Comey wanted more funding-he wanted to widen the investigation and was getting too close to Trump.

Incredible that yesterday morning Trump had two Russians in the White House and would not admit the American press although Russian media had photos.  

I ask this again:  what is Trump doing for you and our country?  It is, in fact, what he is doing TO our country.

"Senator Graham opened by asking both Clapper and Yates about whether either had intelligence that would confirm collusion between the Trump administration and the Kremlin.  Clapper once again said there is no evidence of such collusion and Yates refused to answer on the basis that such an answer would reveal classified information."

Amazing that you have info beyond the scopes of what James Clapper, who was appointed Director of National Intelligence by Obama and was a unanimous pick  has...  

Maybe the news channels your watching are lying to you? 

[thc6795]

10 minutes ago, AztecPadre said:

If those news sources are hacks and not credible, which ones do you consider "credible"?

None of them. People will watch what they want to believe. I stay as far away from all of them as I can. None of them "report news" now they are either trying to "make news" or force their opinions or agendas down your throat.

[AztecPadre]

17 minutes ago, thc6795 said:

None of them. People will watch what they want to believe. I stay as far away from all of them as I can. None of them "report news" now they are either trying to "make news" or force their opinions or agendas down your throat.

NPR?

[thc6795]

1 minute ago, AztecPadre said:

NPR?

Some but mostly social media. Not so much Facebook anymore although some. I like immediate unfiltered statements. Like with President Trump regardless If I agree with him or not. When he posts on twitter it is coming right from the horses mouth. I can make my own opinion. If I watch CNN they will give me their opinion of what President Trump just said. I have seen this many times. Best and worst thing to ever happen was social media.

[AztecPadre]

3 minutes ago, thc6795 said:

Some but mostly social media. Not so much Facebook anymore although some. I like immediate unfiltered statements. Like with President Trump regardless If I agree with him or not. When he posts on twitter it is coming right from the horses mouth. I can make my own opinion. If I watch CNN they will give me their opinion of what President Trump just said. I have seen this many times. Best and worst thing to ever happen was social media.

Meant National Public Radio.  I agree with the rest tho. I am the same way.  I like to form my own opinion rather than follow or believe a strangers words. 

[NYHSFAN33]

42 minutes ago, NorCalRuss said:

"Senator Graham opened by asking both Clapper and Yates about whether either had intelligence that would confirm collusion between the Trump administration and the Kremlin.  Clapper once again said there is no evidence of such collusion and Yates refused to answer on the basis that such an answer would reveal classified information."

Amazing that you have info beyond the scopes of what James Clapper, who was appointed Director of National Intelligence by Obama and was a unanimous pick  has...  

Maybe the news channels your watching are lying to you? 

This is a fact.  Good work.  I do not expect Big Drop to respond to this, as there is really nothing to respond to.  He just wants to make his slanted point about being "With her."

[thc6795]

1 minute ago, NYHSFAN33 said:

This is a fact.  Good work.  I do not expect Big Drop to respond to this, as there is really nothing to respond to.  He just wants to make his slanted point about being "With her."

or how the world is ending soon because the foreign newspapers are reporting President Trump to be the anti Christ. 

[zulu1128]

49 minutes ago, AztecPadre said:

NPR?

NPR is probably as close as anyone to being somewhat impartial...although they're still not all the way there.

[SOCIntellectualProperty]

3 hours ago, concha said:

Latest unemployment claims at their lowest level since 1988.

 

MAGA

Here we go with this again

 

 

for an Ivy League  fellow with over 30 years  of experience in finance... you often seem to get confused by some of the most elementary shit

 

these are still Obama gains..... beat your chest when/if Trump's own policies benefit the economy.... a president's policies don't effect the economy until 9 or 10 month in

 

not immediately after the election like a lot of idiot wings nuts insisted before....smh

 

so as far as those employment gains you're touting....say it with me:

 

"Obama....Obama...Obama"

[BigDrop]

2 hours ago, NorCalRuss said:

"Senator Graham opened by asking both Clapper and Yates about whether either had intelligence that would confirm collusion between the Trump administration and the Kremlin.  Clapper once again said there is no evidence of such collusion and Yates refused to answer on the basis that such an answer would reveal classified information."

Amazing that you have info beyond the scopes of what James Clapper, who was appointed Director of National Intelligence by Obama and was a unanimous pick  has...  

Maybe the news channels your watching are lying to you? 

Watch Lester Holt and his interview with Trump tonight.  

[NorCalRuss]

33 minutes ago, SOCIntellectualProperty said:

Here we go with this again

 

 

for an Ivy League  fellow with over 30 years  of experience in finance... you often seem to get confused by some of the most elementary shit

 

these are still Obama gains..... beat your chest when/if Trump's own policies benefit the economy.... a president's policies don't effect the economy until 9 or 10 month in

 

not immediately after the election like a lot of idiot wings nuts insisted before....smh

 

so as far as those employment gains you're touting....say it with me:

 

"Obama....Obama...Obama"

Kinda like the N. Korea, Syria, Iran, Russia fiascos...

[SOCIntellectualProperty]

18 minutes ago, NorCalRuss said:

Kinda like the N. Korea, Syria, Iran, Russia fiascos...

I can dig it... barely 

[zulu1128]

2 hours ago, SOCIntellectualProperty said:

Here we go with this again

 

 

for an Ivy League  fellow with over 30 years  of experience in finance... you often seem to get confused by some of the most elementary shit

 

these are still Obama gains..... beat your chest when/if Trump's own policies benefit the economy.... a president's policies don't effect the economy until 9 or 10 month in

 

not immediately after the election like a lot of idiot wings nuts insisted before....smh

 

so as far as those employment gains you're touting....say it with me:

 

"Obama....Obama...Obama"

According to this logic, 9/11 was pretty much Bill Clinton's fault, right?

Also, Clinton claimed (and was given) credit for his policies ending the recession in March of 1993...two months after he took office.

The economy contracted by 1% during Q1 of 2001...funny, I don't remember Clinton getting the blame for that...it was all on Dubya if memory serves.

If you're sitting in the chair, you get the blame...or you get the credit.

Sorry. 

[SOCIntellectualProperty]

1 hour ago, zulu1128 said:

According to this logic, 9/11 was pretty much Bill Clinton's fault, right?

Also, Clinton claimed (and was given) credit for his policies ending the recession in March of 1993...two months after he took office.

The economy contracted by 1% during Q1 of 2001...funny, I don't remember Clinton getting the blame for that...it was all on Dubya if memory serves.

If you're sitting in the chair, you get the blame...or you get the credit.

Sorry. 

uh... no Zulu

 

that's not how it works, with economics... most analyst agree that it takes 9 to 10 months after inauguration for a President's policy to have an effect on the economy 

 

Still.... over 40 percent of Americans blamed Clinton for 911, even though he was past his 9 month mark

[zulu1128]

31 minutes ago, SOCIntellectualProperty said:

uh... no Zulu

that's not how it works, with economics... most analyst agree that it takes 9 to 10 months after inauguration for a President's policy to have an effect on the economy

Funny...did some cursory searching, and am unable to find any documentation for this claim. Feel free to post a link or two if you'd be so kind.

Also, jump into the #waybackmachine and tell the pundits that Clinton didn't really stop the 1993 recession, or cause the 2001 downturn...because that's the story that was sold.

 

31 minutes ago, SOCIntellectualProperty said:

Still.... over 40 percent of Americans blamed Clinton for 911, even though he was past his 9 month mark

FWIW...he was at the 7 1/2 month mark. The only poll I can find on the subject shows the public blaming Bush by a significant majority - 55-41.

Hope this helps.

[TheRealCAJ]

Anyways, back to the reality.

cheeto, sounds an awful lot like David Lee Roth.

 

[thc6795]

6 minutes ago, TheRealCAJ said:

Anyways, back to the reality.

cheeto, sounds an awful lot like David Lee Roth.

 

Hopefully our enemy never gets wind of you. If so they will invade for sure. Although with your stank ass I'm sure they can smell you in Russia. They are just mistaken the smell for piles of dog shit.

[SOCIntellectualProperty]

1 hour ago, zulu1128 said:

Funny...did some cursory searching, and am unable to find any documentation for this claim. Feel free to post a link or two if you'd be so kind.

Also, jump into the #waybackmachine and tell the pundits that Clinton didn't really stop the 1993 recession, or cause the 2001 downturn...because that's the story that was sold.

 

FWIW...he was at the 7 1/2 month mark. The only poll I can find on the subject shows the public blaming Bush by a significant majority - 55-41.

Hope this helps.

not a lot of links but it's pretty common knowledge... if you follow politics closely

 

i was able to come across this though

Policy Lags

There are lags in the implementation of macroeconomic policy because of:

1. Data lags: Many macroeconomic data series such as GDP are only available with a considerable lag, and they are subject to big revisions. Because of this, information policy makers use is retrospective, not contemporaneous. Getting information about the current state of the economy is difficult, we don't have good information until months after the economy has already changed course.
2. Recognition lag: Once the data are finally available it takes time to figure out what they are saying. Is the downturn in employment in this month's data temporary, or the beginning of a longer term trend? If it's temporary, no need to act, but if it's permanent, then action may be needed.
3. Legislative lag: Once we've obtained the necessary data and concluded something must be done, there can be considerable lags in the legislative process as legislators debate the exact form of the package, or oppose it altogether.
4. Implementation lag: Once a policy is passed, it takes time to put it into place, e.g. to set up the administration of the money, to deliver it to the right agencies, to make the plans needed to spend it, etc.
5. Effectiveness lag: After all of that, and the policy is finally put into place, it takes time for policy to hit the economy and take effect. For monetary policy if can be a year to a year and a half before the peak effect of the policy is felt (though the legislative lages are much shorter since the FOMC can act faster than congress). The effectiveness lag for fiscal policy is a bit shorter, but still considerable, six months at least.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

911.. is a red herring, completely irrelevant to economics.... still with all of the warnings ignored, I blame Bush

 

 

[zulu1128]

2 hours ago, SOCIntellectualProperty said:

not a lot of links but it's pretty common knowledge... if you follow politics closely

 

There's "not a lot of links" for a reason...mainly because your 9/10 claim is bullshit. The only thing "common knowledge" here is your oft-repeated habit of trying to sound way smarter than you actually are.

 

2 hours ago, SOCIntellectualProperty said:

i was able to come across this though

Policy Lags

There are lags in the implementation of macroeconomic policy because of:

1. Data lags: Many macroeconomic data series such as GDP are only available with a considerable lag, and they are subject to big revisions. Because of this, information policy makers use is retrospective, not contemporaneous. Getting information about the current state of the economy is difficult, we don't have good information until months after the economy has already changed course.
2. Recognition lag: Once the data are finally available it takes time to figure out what they are saying. Is the downturn in employment in this month's data temporary, or the beginning of a longer term trend? If it's temporary, no need to act, but if it's permanent, then action may be needed.
3. Legislative lag: Once we've obtained the necessary data and concluded something must be done, there can be considerable lags in the legislative process as legislators debate the exact form of the package, or oppose it altogether.
4. Implementation lag: Once a policy is passed, it takes time to put it into place, e.g. to set up the administration of the money, to deliver it to the right agencies, to make the plans needed to spend it, etc.
5. Effectiveness lag: After all of that, and the policy is finally put into place, it takes time for policy to hit the economy and take effect. For monetary policy if can be a year to a year and a half before the peak effect of the policy is felt (though the legislative lages are much shorter since the FOMC can act faster than congress). The effectiveness lag for fiscal policy is a bit shorter, but still considerable, six months at least.

 

 

Just so we're clear, your "proof" for your dumb "9 out of 10" claim is a single 9-year old blog entry from Mark Thoma...a relatively unknown economist who's claim to fame is that Paul Krugman once said something nice about him.

Okay Sport...you run with that.

Best of luck.

 

[BigDrop]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?_r=0 is the front page of the New York Times for Friday:  Trump wanted Comey to confirm loyalty to him.

Not to America.

[NorCalRuss]

18 minutes ago, BigDrop said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?_r=0 is the front page of the New York Times for Friday:  Trump wanted Comey to confirm loyalty to him.

Not to America.

I know 2 people who have sources that say this is bs...

See how simple that was! Hahaha

[BigDrop]

2 minutes ago, NorCalRuss said:

I know 2 people who have sources that say this is bs...

See how simple that was! Hahaha

Appropriate:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/05/12/james-comey-new-yorker-cover/319035001/

[concha]

2 hours ago, BigDrop said:

Appropriate:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/05/12/james-comey-new-yorker-cover/319035001/

Chip needs to up his game.

[NorCalRuss]

Trump needs to start suing these networks for defamation with all these fake "sources" reports. 

Maybe they'll wait to fact check to write these things. 

Its a disservice to the public, none of us know what's true or not anymore and that's wrong. 

[noonereal]

5 hours ago, NorCalRuss said:

Trump needs to start suing these networks for defamation with all these fake "sources" reports. 

Maybe they'll wait to fact check to write these things. 

Its a disservice to the public, none of us know what's true or not anymore and that's wrong. 

Is this post meant literally or sarcastic?