OdontoBear66;842763556 said:

---

Well, pro golfers say Clinton cheats at golf from the get go---you know, like teeing up a second ball before the first one lands. Trump is a pretty good golfer. Any conclusions here? Personality types?

And then there is Hillary. Can't face the press for 250+days. Can't face a classy concession on election night for she is so much in tears. And now, can't face the results. Somebody, anybody, do something please to right this wrong. I am a woman. I was supposed to be President in 2008, 2012, and in 2016...WTF happened? Hahaha.

Hillary, you happened. Ain't selling. You, all by your lonesome, made Trump, and YOU are responsible for the next four years. Because of you.

---

Hillary lost the election and conservatives still can't stop bashing her. At the very least this counts as poor sportsmanship on your part.

dajo9;842763558 said:

---

I think that post speaks more to your character than anybody else

---

Who is "anybody else" dajo? Never shall anyone like you define my character.....My passion this election was to do anything I could to keep HRC out of office....Scuzbucket in my mind. Do I love Trump? No way. Do I like Trump? No. But is he the better alternative right now? Yes. Will he be? We shall see.

And dajo, do you see some give in what I say? I never, ever see anything close to that from you. So sure of yourself and your solutions. More dangerous than the supposed Trump maybe.

1979bear;842763552 said:

---

Clinton settled his case involving Paula Jones IN office for half a million bucks or more. Don't know that it was pending legally when he began term one.

Checked. It was settled for $850,000.

---

Right, that's the only one I'm aware of.

"To keep it simple, one issue at a time. Starting with immigration, I would like to see what was done in the Reagan years improved on."

One of the things that astounds me is that no one addresses the core immigration problem(s).

The solution is simple.

Please note that *simple* in no way means or implies *easy*.

Immigrants mostly come for jobs. So

Prosecute the businesses that hire illegals. One night in jail would eliminate almost all second offenses. Institute a database of _legal_ immigrants so counterfeit green cards would be far less useful.

The other issue is the overstaying of HB-1 immigrants, those admitted because 'there isn't enough skilled labor here'. First, force corporations to rigorously prove that they cannot find worker here. Then, realize that when their visas expire, those workers become illegals. Make the same companies responsible to track their workers and report status to the INS.

Legislative exceptions to both cases could be made only if justified.

Some years ago, a couple freshman Republican assemblymen proposed legislation to require hiring farm workers ONLY form a database of legitimate workers. Central valley farmers screamed bloody murder and the proposal disappeared, never to be heard from again.

An honest discussion about any issue may take some doing. Except for the report of those two freshmen, I've never heard any politician propose anything like that.

dajo9;842759948 said:

---

This wasn't in my note but I will also add that the deficit will be way up but nobody will be talking about that because people only care about the deficit when a Democrat is President.

---

Just have to say I pretty much disagree with everything you say here and above. The big reason the Feds have kept the interest rates low is to finance the Obama deficit spending. Once interest rates rise Interest payments become an overwhelming amount of the Budget. But low interest rates penalize savers and don't spur the economy like Washington folks think. Obama's absolutely crushing over regulation plus Obamacare requirements for employers has crippled small business development during his two terms. Check out the stats on this.

Deficits do matter and the only thing worse than the deficits of W. Bush are Obama's deficits and his are twice as bad. After Bush doubled the cumulative deficit in his 8 years Obama went him one worse and doubled it again during his term, absolutely terrible from both of them.

BearGoggles;842759968 said:

---

You have an incredible talent for writing your assumptions/opinions as factual certitude. I still can't figure out if you are consciously aware of that.

Is there only one cause of low interest rates (the only one you mention income equality)? I'll submit its a little bit more complicated than that. In a technical sense, interest rates are set by the fed and other central banks, and income equality is one of many considerations (and I'm guessing not a very significant one).

We have had inadequate demand for the past 8 years. Equity growth has not been a challenge. There are lots of other factors driving equity growth, including tax policy and the comparative strength of other economies.

What I've learned over the years (and yes I was an Econ major at Cal):

Economics is more of an art, than a science. This is because each conclusion/prediction is based on a multitude of simplistic assumptions (of which your post contains many) about facts and dynamics that are poorly understood by economists (and others). Moreover, there are often unforeseen intervening events (such as wars/political events like brexit) or new factors not previously considered. For example, your post doesn't mention (and it appears you have not considered) a variety of other Trump policies that will have economic effects (e.g., stimulating revenue neutral revisions to the tax code, trade policy and/or eliminating regulatory restrictions including on energy).

Psychology matters. As I'm sure you know, there is a lot of study about markets with incomplete information and, in addition to that, we have no idea what Trump's election will mean to consumer and/or business confidence.

Presidents don't have as much control over the economy as lots of people assume. Policy matters, but there are a ton of other factors that a president doesn't control.

The economy has always run in cycles of growth and recession. Recessions, in part, are a consequence of imbalances and inefficiencies that inevitably develop in the market. Government policy matters, but those policies will never be able to avoid recessions/ensure growth.

"Economists" predictions and recommendations are, to varying degrees, biased by their political views. There will often be subjective choices endemic to policy choices (growth v. deficits v. inflation or income equality v. growth). Paul Krugman (a Nobel winning economist) is so blinded by his bitterness and partisanship, that he has made wildly inconsistent statements and recommendations. He is an extreme example, but all economists bring some of this to the table.

---

+1

dajo9;842759980 said:

---

I spent decades questioning economic narratives. That's how I've come to some strong opinions now that I'm in my 40's. Everyone does predict doom when the other side takes power. People like me were right last time. Conservatives were wrong last time. That isn't just coincidence.

---

Huh??? Just what were people like your right about "last time?" (and which last time?)

And what were conservatives wrong about the last time? Do you think this is a good economy? Every conservative I know is extremely concerned and has no confidence in the economy and sees how only the elites have benefited.

You talk about Income Inequality and it is at its peak under Obama? I do see lots of people with hope now that the Overegulatory State may at least slow down a little bit and at best we may get rid of some of the worst regulatory excesses of the Obama Regime.

dajo9;842759980 said:

---

I spent decades questioning economic narratives. That's how I've come to some strong opinions now that I'm in my 40's. Everyone does predict doom when the other side takes power. People like me were right last time. Conservatives were wrong last time. That isn't just coincidence.

---

Huh??? Just what were "people like you" right about "last time?" (and which last time?)

And what were conservatives wrong about the last time? Do you think this is a good economy? Every conservative I know is extremely concerned and has no confidence in the economy and sees how only the elites have benefited.

You talk about Income Inequality but it is at its peak under Obama? I do see lots of people with hope now that Overegulation may at least slow down a little bit and at best we may get rid of some of the worst regulatory excesses of the Obama Regime.

dajo9;842760149 said:

---

Normally this would be spot on however 2018 is very different. If you look at the Senate races in 2018 there are likely only 2 potential flips to the Dems. That would create a tie and leave the GOP in charge. Meanwhile there are many Dems running in red states who are vulnerable.

In the House, GOP gerrymandering has created an environment where the GOP holds Congress even if people vote for Dems. Such was the case in 2012. I've seen estimates that Dem's would have to win about 58% of the Congressional vote to retake the House. I think it's most likely the GOP holds Congress through 2020.

---

I always laugh when I hear Libs/Progressives talk about "Republican Gerrymandering". I am sure there is Republican Gerrymandering when the opportunity arises but the Democrats wrote the book on it.

Check out how they gamed the entire freaking system in California at last Reapportionment, or did you forget about that already?

ddc_Cal;842763432 said:

---

It's not just gerrymandering. Don't overlook how effective voter suppression is, in its various forms. Specific forms of ID, closing down polling places where the wrong people vote, shortening voting hours, and "People, you need to go to certain areas and make sure no one is voting who shouldn't. You know what I am talking about." And, with the appointment of more so-called 'conservative' Supreme Court justices, it's all nice 'n' legal.

Also, remember that there are voting machines that have NO audit trail and the results are automatically official and no recount is possible. And any investigation is controlled by those who control the voting machines.

And there will be continuous campaigning, just like the last Republican administration. Get ready for Obama to be blamed for the increase in the deficit, privatizing Medicare, and cuts to Social Security -- and of course any and all problems with the economy or employment. It a nucular weapon is used on Syria or Iran or ISIS, it'll be because 'Obama left us with such a mess. We had no choice, I can tell you that. We know they were planning to bomb us. People that we waterboarded admitted it. Also, Curveball told us right where to look.'

And people who watch Fox "news" will believe every word.

Republicans in Congress supported Trump because he will sign all entitlement cuts and all tax breaks. They may despise the short fingered vulgarian, but they are lining up for their pilgrimage to Trump Tower to prostate themselves before him in hopes of being able to join the empire.

---

OMG, the old voter suppression line. Show exactly where it happens and how? I will be happy to show you Democrats running phony "absentee ballot" mills in North Carolina.

burritos;842761362 said:

---

I'm not rooting for de-industrialization, it's just an observation. If the doomsday predictions of climate change do come to fruition, it just mother nature's way of keeping in check the smart and spoiled cohort of her children. I don't want to others to suffer, but I realized I have minimal impact on this course of history.

---

I will go on record in this thread right now and say that the Doomsday predictions on Global Warming, I mean Climate Change, I mean inconvenient weather will be absolutely and completely wrong.

Talk to you in five years....just like the last eight years have not done what ManBearPig (AlGore) predicted they will not happen in the next five years.

I was really worried when I first heard of CO2 "pollution" and "Global Warming" but after studying it and watching how "Science" has been hijacked by Politicians I feel safe in my prediction.

BearGoggles;842761579 said:

---

Thank you for making my point - your blind partisanship shows through.

Re #1, Anyone who can look at the 2008 financial meltdown and conclude that it was caused by "conservative deregulation policy" is delusional. Both parties supported repeal of Glass-Steagall. The Dems (far more than the republicans) supported the Community Reinvestment Act and other policies which loosened lending/fannie/freddie requirements (i.e., deregulation) and favored sub-prime lending, though of course Wall Street (and many republicans) were happy to make money off of those policies. You are losing credibility (what's left of it) by trying to pin that on one party. Both parties favored these policies in large part because the lobbyist/money was flowing freely.

Re #4, I think its pretty clear Obama/Pelosi/Reid overreached. Obamacare was passed without any Republican support and, as a result, has faced unrelenting opposition ever since, so much so that simple amendments have been impossible. Reid used a variety of parliamentary tricks that were questionable - guess what the republicans will do now? They lost Dem control of congress 2 years later and repeal of Obamacare has been a central issue ever since (including Trumps election). Obama pushed the limits of executive power by acting unilaterally on immigration and environmental matters that had been expressly rejected by Congress (DACA and cap and trade). How is that working out? All of that will be gone in the next few months (if not sooner). That is the lesson that I hope Trump learns - that acting unilaterally and without some democrat buy in is bad and has blowback. Not sure what you find "funny" about all this - unless you find the dismantling of Obama's legacy funny (and placed in that light, it is certainly "funny" to me).

---

Yes, spot on.

burritos;842761228 said:

---

I don't think Trump is as stupid as we think he it. Bush and Sarah Palin are.

---

But are they as stupid as Obama? See, how does it feel when those words are used on your person?

dajo9;842762063 said:

---

The old we have to cut benefits now because there is a risk we may have to cut benefits in the future argument.

I would have liked to have an honest discussion as well. The President-elect said he would keep Medicare. Should I take him at his word?

---

Unfunded liabilities are going to be paid for by you and your children and grandchildren if you have them.

sycasey;842762196 said:

---

Most of this seems reasonable to me, though the logistics of finding and removing the actual "criminal" element among immigrants seems tough. How do you identify them outside of normal policing? Special focus on the foreign-born by law enforcement? That sounds like something that will inevitably lead to overreach.

In any event, the rhetoric coming from actual GOP officials sounds much more hard-line than this (Trump wants to name Steve Bannon one of his top advisors, for Chrissakes). That is what has me scared. I hope you and your fellow conservatives are willing to hold your leaders to account if and when they go too far.

---

Wow, glad to hear you agree that this common sense approach sounds reasonable. Can we find even one more dem/lib/progressive to agree? This is what we have been seeking forever but instead get demonized as racist.

Vandalus;842763031 said:

---

I'm guessing you aren't aware that Obama has deported 2.5 million (and counting) illegal immigrants since taking office, more than any other president. under his administration, ICE has specifically targeted known criminals for deportation orders.

---

Obama counts catching people as they try and cross the border and sending them back as "deportations". That used to be called catching people at the border and not letting them in. And of course he lets most of them in anyway...

okaydo;842763350 said:

---

---

Ah the racist card. Wasn't expecting that one at all......................not.

dajo9;842763554 said:

---

It was about Trump lying. You should be used to that concept by now. Trump lying.

I think your facts on Clinton are wrong.

---

Gee, still tone deaf to all of Hillary's lies? Great video of her ducking and covering running from that Helicopter in Croatia or wherever that was... But really, what difference does it make..

p.s. every conservative I know is completely aware of the Donald's many misstatements and lies.

Good grief 16 pages of arguing democrats v republicans. Any of you realize that party doesn't matter since both parties are ruled by their lobbyists. Politicos are like a crime syndicate/cartel and basically are interested in their own interests and feign interest in their constituents.

Nothing will change until there is a revolution and even then there's no guarantee.

The only way to get away from this nonsense is to get away from partisanship and stop having parties.

NVBear78;842763611 said:

---

Gee, still tone deaf to all of Hillary's lies? Great video of her ducking and covering running from that Helicopter in Croatia or wherever that was... But really, what difference does it make..

p.s. every conservative I know is completely aware of the Donald's many misstatements and lies.

---

You realize you went back 20 years for a Hillary Clinton lie? Every week Trump tells as many lies as Clinton ever has.

1979bear;842763552 said:

---

Clinton settled his case involving Paula Jones IN office for half a million bucks or more. Don't know that it was pending legally when he began term one.

Checked. It was settled for $850,000.

---

The context here is important. The Paula Jones civil suit was being used by the 5 year old Ken Starr Whitewater crooked witch hunt to depose anybody and everybody about Bill Clinton. It was being used politically as an attack cudgel against Clinton. So yes, Clinton settled and ended his fight with Paula Jones but the context is incredibly important.

NVBear78;842763605 said:

---

Unfunded liabilities are going to be paid for by you and your children and grandchildren if you have them.

---

I hope so. That will mean they are in the 1%.

NVBear78;842763608 said:

---

Ah the racist card. Wasn't expecting that one at all......................not.

---

Sessions: I thought the KKK was ok until I found out they smoked weed
American Majority: Sessions shouldn't be Attorney General because he is racist
NVBear78: Ah the racist card

NVBear78;842763592 said:

---

Just have to say I pretty much disagree with everything you say here and above. The big reason the Feds have kept the interest rates low is to finance the Obama deficit spending. Once interest rates rise Interest payments become an overwhelming amount of the Budget. But low interest rates penalize savers and don't spur the economy like Washington folks think. Obama's absolutely crushing over regulation plus Obamacare requirements for employers has crippled small business development during his two terms. Check out the stats on this.

Deficits do matter and the only thing worse than the deficits of W. Bush are Obama's deficits and his are twice as bad. After Bush doubled the cumulative deficit in his 8 years Obama went him one worse and doubled it again during his term, absolutely terrible from both of them.

---

The Feds didn't keep interest rates low. In fact, the Feds raised rates from their equilibrium level which was negative (see my Quantitative Easing Thread for more on this). I'm always amazed at people who think government is incompetent and can't do anything right and yet think government has complete control over interest rates. The government can try to push interest rates in a certain direction but ultimately the market determines what interest rates are. The further you go out on the yield curve the less control government has.

Your misunderstanding of how economics works in regards to low / high interest rates is exactly the mistake I think Trump may make and why I think we'll have negative long term rates before his term is out. If I am wrong we'll have strong economic growth in the upcoming years. So don't get mad at me - just watch the data.

Obama's deficits were a direct result of Bush's Great Recession.

NVBear78;842763596 said:

---

Huh??? Just what were people like your right about "last time?" (and which last time?)

And what were conservatives wrong about the last time? Do you think this is a good economy? Every conservative I know is extremely concerned and has no confidence in the economy and sees how only the elites have benefited.

You talk about Income Inequality and it is at its peak under Obama? I do see lots of people with hope now that the Overegulatory State may at least slow down a little bit and at best we may get rid of some of the worst regulatory excesses of the Obama Regime.

---

People like me argued that Bush's tax cutting on the wealthy and deregulation would lead to economic instability and problems. That was correct. You are arguing for more of the same.

Income inequality is a trend that has been growing since about 1980. Obama with a Republican Congress was not able to do much about it, though Obamacare helped and has brought down future deficit projections and likely contributed to the strength in the economy recently and the surge in median wages we've seen the past year. All admittedly hard to quantify.

Interest rates also peaked about 1980. It is easy to see why income inequality would drive long term secular trends for interest rates. Income inequality increases demand for investments and decreases demand for goods and services - which means opportunity for risky investments like equities are limited. So demand for safe bonds goes up. This drives down interest rates.

Your argument is that we have been stifled by over-regulation. Fair enough. If you are right we should see a surge in economic growth in the upcoming years. Time will tell. My belief is that the one path from Trump's policies to growth is infrastructure but I doubt we'll get real infrastructure projects from the GOP Congress. If we do, I'll be happy about that and think that will lead to growth. The deregulation and tax cuts to come will just lead to more problems down the road - just like last time.

dajo9;842763639 said:

---

The context here is important. The Paula Jones civil suit was being used by the 5 year old Ken Starr Whitewater crooked witch hunt to depose anybody and everybody about Bill Clinton. It was being used politically as an attack cudgel against Clinton. So yes, Clinton settled and ended his fight with Paula Jones but the context is incredibly important.

---

Bill was a predator. Context doesn't change who he is. This made calling private citizen Trump in this election a predator so ineffective. Bill was predator as governor and as President. Unlike Trump he held the public trust while he was a predator. Bill is a different class of creep from a private citizen creep. Hillary was Bills enabler. Admirable? No. Their goal was obtaining power. And keeping it. Ordinary people get the distinction between Bill and Trump. It's obvious Partisans deny it. Hillary is a smart lady. She should have known better than to draw attention to Bill by attacking Trump as a predator.

Since today (Big Game day) should be one of unity amongst us and not division, I propose a one day hold on this thread. Let's resume tomorrow after we've beaten Stanfurd's Fightin' Herbert Hoovers. Go Bears! Beat Stanfurd!

1979bear;842763654 said:

---

Bill was a predator. Context doesn't change who he is. This made calling private citizen Trump in this election a predator so ineffective. Bill was predator as governor and as President. Unlike Trump he held the public trust while he was a predator. Bill is a different class of creep from a private citizen creep. Hillary was Bills enabler. Admirable? No. Their goal was obtaining power. And keeping it. Ordinary people get the distinction between Bill and Trump. It's obvious Partisans deny it. Hillary is a smart lady. She should have known better than to draw attention to Bill by attacking Trump as a predator.

---

The U.S. just elected a president who admitted on tape that he's a sexual pervert.

NYCGOBEARS;842763655 said:

---

Since today (Big Game day) should be one of unity amongst us and not division, I propose a one day hold on this thread. Let's resume tomorrow after we've beaten Stanfurd's Fightin' Herbert Hoovers. Go Bears! Beat Stanfurd!

---

Speaking of Hoover, the Hoover Institution's George Shultz, who turns 96 next month, is pissed at and has frozen out his Stanford alum grandson for being the Theranos whistleblower.

(The elder Shultz is on Theranos' board.)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-whistleblower-shook-the-companyand-his-family-1479335963

NYCGOBEARS;842763655 said:

---

Since today (Big Game day) should be one of unity amongst us and not division, I propose a one day hold on this thread. Let's resume tomorrow after we've beaten Stanfurd's Fightin' Herbert Hoovers. Go Bears! Beat Stanfurd!

---

But the whole point of this thread is to remain in denial about the state of Cal football. You want me to actually participate in a score prediction? Stanford by 20. Hope I'm wrong.

NVBear78;842763597 said:

---

Huh??? Just what were "people like you" right about "last time?" (and which last time?)

And what were conservatives wrong about the last time? Do you think this is a good economy? Every conservative I know is extremely concerned and has no confidence in the economy and sees how only the elites have benefited.

You talk about Income Inequality but it is at its peak under Obama? I do see lots of people with hope now that Overegulation may at least slow down a little bit and at best we may get rid of some of the worst regulatory excesses of the Obama Regime.

---

I know one person who is going to benefit from a Trump presidency:



This isn't just a photo of Ivanka Trump. It's a middle finger to democracy.

Shredding democratic traditions, one image at a time.

Donald Trump is leveraging his new position as president-elect to empower his business empire  and he's doing it publicly.

We've known for some time that Trump didn't plan to actually resolve the unprecedented conflicts his far-flung business interests presented.

Instead of liquidating his assets and placing them in a Qualified Diversified Trust, as President Bush did, or investing in index funds and government bonds, as President Obama did, Trump has done nothing.


The merger of the Trump administration and the Trump Organization took 6 days


The first truly corporate presidency.

He's waved away concerns about conflicts-of-interest, saying that he would just hand over control of his business interests to his children.

He called this a "blind trust" but it is actually the opposite. A blind trust is when you hand marketable assets over to a neutral third party to control. The contents of the trust, since they can be traded at any time by the administrator, are soon unknown to you. Trump knows what his assets are and says he is handing them to his children.

Immediately after Trump's election, he named three of his adult children  Ivanka, Eric, and Donald Jr.  to his transition team. This means the same people running the Trump Organization will also be choosing the top officials in the Trump administration.

Now he is taking things a step further. In his first meeting with an head of state, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Trump invited his daughter Ivanka  who will likely serve as acting CEO of his companies  to participate.

Trump could have kept Ivanka's participation private. Instead, his team handed out a photo featuring Ivanka.

Nepotism laws prohibit Ivanka from taking a formal role in the White House. But Trump is choosing to send a clear signal to Japan and the world  when you deal with Ivanka, you are dealing with someone who has my ear as president.

Let's suppose one of Trump's companies would like to open a hotel in Japan and is seeking permits. Would the Japanese government deny them and risk the ire of the President of the United States?

This doesn't just apply to Japan. This is Trump's first meeting with a head of state and Trump knows that this photo will be seen around the world. Any country doing business with the Trump organization will be very clear about Ivanka's role.

Since Trump will retain ownership in his businesses, Ivanka's success will mean money in Trump's pocket.

The Trump transition did something similar when it leaked word that Trump had requested security clearances for Ivanka, Eric and Donald Jr.

Trump later denied this report but at that point, it hardly mattered. The story was another way for the Trump transition to credential his children as integral to, not separate from, the Trump administration.

The president is supposed to represent the people's interest  not his own. This is a core tenet of democracy. In just about a week, Trump has left hundreds of years of democratic tradition in tatters.

Speaking of "safe spaces":






[video=youtube;bNfTONoEfWI][/video]

okaydo;842763667 said:

---

Speaking of "safe spaces":






[video=youtube;bNfTONoEfWI][/video]

---

Talk about thinned skin.

Lol, They're f$ckin actors not founding fathers- shut up!. Plus Hamilton would have hobnobbed with Trump being a banker, an elitist and by all reports not adverse to strange pu$$y

okaydo;842763667 said:

---

Speaking of "safe spaces":






[video=youtube;bNfTONoEfWI][/video]

---

"The theater must always be a safe and special place". There goes Donald, asking for safe spaces.