[Winstonm]

Dennison's lawyers are now claiming he has powers of a monarch.

Quote

By Michael S. Schmidt, Maggie Haberman, Charlie Savage and Matt Apuzzo
June 2, 2018

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s lawyers have for months quietly waged a campaign to keep the special counsel from trying to force him to answer questions in the investigation into whether he obstructed justice, asserting that he cannot be compelled to testify and arguing in a confidential letter that he could not possibly have committed obstruction because he has unfettered authority over all federal investigations.

In a brash assertion of presidential power, the 20-page letter — sent to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and obtained by The New York Times — contends that the president cannot illegally obstruct any aspect of the investigation into Russia’s election meddling because the Constitution empowers him to, “if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon.”

[Read the Trump lawyers’ confidential memo to Mr. Mueller here.]

Mr. Trump’s lawyers fear that if he answers questions, either voluntarily or in front of a grand jury, he risks exposing himself to accusations of lying to investigators, a potential crime or impeachable offense.

Mr. Trump’s broad interpretation of executive authority is novel and is likely to be tested if a court battle ensues over whether he could be ordered to answer questions. It is unclear how that fight, should the case

[barmar]

 ldrews, on 2018-June-01, 10:27, said:

And yet unemployment is at record lows, wages are rising, GDP is projected to be above 4%, North Korea is negotiating. Somebody must be doing something right.

While low unemployment is a good thing, we must always remember that part of the reason for this is that many people have left the workforce entirely. They don't count as unemployed in most statistics, even though they don't have jobs. And wages have been stagnant -- many of the people are employed in part-time and low-wage jobs (in many cases multiple of these jobs).

It's been like this for many years, and the Great Recession just made things worse for many people, causing them to give up on trying to find decent jobs.

[Winstonm]

Lawfare has an interesting read.

[Winstonm]

 barmar, on 2018-June-03, 13:32, said:

While low unemployment is a good thing, we must always remember that part of the reason for this is that many people have left the workforce entirely. They don't count as unemployed in most statistics, even though they don't have jobs. And wages have been stagnant -- many of the people are employed in part-time and low-wage jobs (in many cases multiple of these jobs).

It's been like this for many years, and the Great Recession just made things worse for many people, causing them to give up on trying to find decent jobs.

You should doublecheck claims made:

GDP forecasts, https://www.conferen.../usforecast.cfm

Wage growth, https://www.conferen.../usforecast.cfm

Record unemployment, https://tradingecono...employment-rate

And even North Korea - their history of negotiating: https://www.cfr.org/...ar-negotiations

[rmnka447]

 barmar, on 2018-June-03, 13:32, said:

While low unemployment is a good thing, we must always remember that part of the reason for this is that many people have left the workforce entirely. They don't count as unemployed in most statistics, even though they don't have jobs. And wages have been stagnant -- many of the people are employed in part-time and low-wage jobs (in many cases multiple of these jobs).

It's been like this for many years, and the Great Recession just made things worse for many people, causing them to give up on trying to find decent jobs.

Funny, but that's an argument conservatives used when progressives were touting 4.0% unemployment in 2016 as proof the economy was doing just fine. The election proved that a significant part of the electorate didn't buy those claims.

The following article provides some more substantial evidence with regard to where we're at --

https://www.marketwa...-low-2018-06-01

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2018-June-03, 15:30, said:

Funny, but that's an argument conservatives used when progressives were touting 4.0% unemployment in 2016 as proof the economy was doing just fine. The election proved that a significant part of the electorate didn't buy those claims.

The following article provides some more substantial evidence with regard to where we're at --

https://www.marketwa...-low-2018-06-01

Actually, I think the Lawfare article I linked to above is the best description of where we are as a country.

[Winstonm]

Bob Bauer writes in Lawfare:

Quote

The Sindler definition gets at the key element in the conduct of the demagogue, which is the manipulation of language to attract and maintain popular support in service of the demagogue’s unbounded self-interest. The leadership function has become pathologically personalized; personal ends and ambitions are of primary importance to the demagogue. His self-interested ends justify the use of virtually any means—or at least any he could hope to get away with.

Among the consequences is the demagogue’s resistance to institutional and legal limits on that power. In Michael Signer’s words, the demagogue may, as he sees fit, “threaten an outright…break with established rules of conduct, institutions, and even the law.” When an adversary demanded that he heed the state Constitution, Huey Long infamously responded: “I’m the Constitution around here now.” To violate or circumvent the law, the demagogue believes that he requires only the proclaimed validation of the “people” who stand behind him. As James Fennimore Cooper wrote in his 1838 essay “The Demagogue,” it is in “affecting a deep devotion to the interests of the people” that the demagogue claims justification to put those interests “before the Constitution and the laws.”

The demagogue’s aims lead relentlessly toward the maintenance of high-pitched rhetoric and its ready escalation. He is, after all, a leader charged with giving effect to the popular will that he personifies and defending against the barriers wrongly erected against it. If constitutional laws and legal limits must give way, so too must the objections and opposition of adversaries. The demagogue specializes in lashing out.

Quote

The fully fledged demagogue is, however, that kind of politician and leader: Demagoguery constitutes his style of political leadership, a style irreconcilable with the oath to execute his office in trust for others. This is the source of massive political “injuries…done immediately to the Society itself” identified in Federalist No. 65. Theorists who have taken up the subject of the demagogue agree on the seriousness of the damage. So a progressive student of demagoguery, Michael Signer, can agree with the prominent conservative scholar Harvey Mansfield that the demagogue is an “enemy” of democracy.

[rmnka447]

 Winstonm, on 2018-June-03, 15:54, said:

Actually, I think the Lawfare article I linked to above is the best description of where we are as a country.

Fine, if that's your opinion.

But the source you cite is also just an opinion provided by a not-demonstratably unbiased source.

My reference was a fact-based article to shed some light on the economic situation.

See you in a month or two when I may espy something else worthy of comment here.

[ldrews]

Enjoy! A list of the accomplishments of President Trump after the first 500 days in office.

https://www.thegatew...days-in-office/

[kenberg]

What should we make of the economy? A couple of references and a thought or two.
Robert Samuelson has a column in WaPo today. It's not all that sunstantial but he does not seem to be carrying water for anyone in particular.

https://www.washingt...1030035d

However he gives a reference that could be useful for study
https://www.federalr...olds-201805.pdf

One thought: When we look at progress, it is probably easier to get unemployment figures to drop from 8% to 6% than it is to get them to drop from 6% to 4%. For example, I doubt anyone thinks it will drop from 4% to 2%, and if by some miracle that should happen it will not then drop from 2% to 0%. So we need to be careful about a linear interpretation to numbers which inherently are not linear.

Another thought, along the same lines. There are still people out of work Far fewer than before, but still people out of work. Sometimes the solution is to increase the number of jobs. Not always. We are getting to a point where we right ask "How many of the now unemployed are able to hold a job if one existed?" I have known a couple of young men that, as near as I can see, simply cannot hold a job. This can be because of ability, or it can be a personality issue, or some combination of these.
And still another thought. There are, most unfortunately, a lot of single parents out there. Let's suppose she or he has the ability to do a job and the personality to not get fired. Can s/he feed and house the kid(s) on what s/he is earning?

It really pains me to see so many young people growing up in bad circumstances. How can it be that it was easier when I was growing up in the middle of the last century? I recently went to the 80th birthday party of a classmate from the 1952 graduating class of my K-8 elementary school. This has triggered a flood of memories and comparisons of then and now. No doubt memory is faulty, but "then" seems like it was better than "now". This does not please me.


Yes. I was and am white. I was and am male. I got that, we have to acknowledge it. Still.

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2018-June-03, 23:38, said:

Fine, if that's your opinion.

But the source you cite is also just an opinion provided by a not-demonstratably unbiased source.

My reference was a fact-based article to shed some light on the economic situation.

See you in a month or two when I may espy something else worthy of comment here.

You are so touchy - I didn't discredit your article. I accept it as valid. I just think it not too germane to who is in office. Besides, like Reagan, it's easy to throw a wild party if you borrow enough money, and adding $1.5 trillion to the national debt is definately Reagan-esque.

The big question is whether or not we all are arguing policy or personality - and that is the point of Republican Bob Bauer's article. Yes, I agree he is biased against this president and this administration, but that does not mean he cannot have valid and proper points - just as everything this president has done has not been wrong. That's not the point.

The point is about demagoguery and its dangers to democracy. Is the support for this guy a personal loyalty from his voters or is it for his policy? It is hard to know as there is little policy discussed other than hate and danger and "I'm great."

You can refuse to face that issue - but it is as critical now as it was when Joseph McCarthy was running roughshod over the U.S. Senate: can democracies afford to become subservient to a demagogue?

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2018-June-03, 15:08, said:

Record unemployment, https://tradingecono...employment-rate

What The Unemployment And Labor Force Participation Rates Would Be If All Of The Discouraged Workers Came Back

It's a few years old, but the Labor Participation Rate was the about same in that article as in the one you linked to.

[awm]

It’s pretty funny reading the economic evaluations. For the past eight years it’s pretty much been as follows.

Good: stock market has increased rapidly, jobs have been created nearly every month, unemployment has been gradually declining, gdp has been increasing, corporate profits for publicly traded companies have set records, housing prices are rising again.

Bad: gains have mostly gone to the top 1% (who own most of the stocks), labor participation rate is low by historical standards, wage increases have been very small relative to gdp growth, new jobs seem to be low paying compared to jobs lost in 2008-9 recession, small towns have not recovered as well as large metro areas, gdp growth has hovered a bit above 2% and hasn’t exceeded 3% for any calendar year, we have a very large federal budget deficit and there are concerns about rising inflation among economists (but no sustained trends).

Somehow when Obama was president this economic report was a disaster (according to Republicans) and now that Trump is president the same exact report is an economic miracle. Democrats tends to be a little less extreme but you see exactly the reverse evaluation!

[Winstonm]

Anyone on either side who credits any particular president with great impact on the U.S. economy is woefully ignorant of economics.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2018-June-04, 09:30, said:

Anyone on either side who credits any particular president with great impact on the U.S. economy is woefully ignorant of economics.

So who are you going to believe? Your own lying eyes or academics of economics?

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2018-June-04, 09:30, said:

Anyone on either side who credits any particular president with great impact on the U.S. economy is woefully ignorant of economics.

Maybe you and others who say this could clarify a bit. Assuming that this stuff with tariffs continues on in the general direction that it is going, I think that five years from now economists, and others, will regard them as having had a large impact on our economy. Maybe good, as Trump and supporters think, maybe bad, as I think, but I doubt that five years from now economists will be saying "Oh it was much ado about nothing much". That would surprise me. And if Trump reverses course, as he seems to do more often than a yo-yo, this will matter also.

The tariffs seem to be particularly under Trump's control, but of course there are other matters. The tax cut was passed by Congress, but I doubt Hillary Clinton would have signed it. Again, I think this will have significant impact.

I'm more than willing to admit to being woefully ignorant of economics. I doubt that this makes me unusual. Maybe not even unusual in an economics department. But are we really to think that these actions of Trump, or the Bush tax cuts back in 2001, or a variety of other actions over the years by various presidents, have had only a slight effect on the economy? Probably a president's choice for who heads the Fed has a big effect. Many things do. Or so I think.

A president cannot just wave a magic wand and get the result s/he wants, that I can agree to.

[ldrews]

 kenberg, on 2018-June-04, 15:45, said:

Maybe you and others who say this could clarify a bit. Assuming that this stuff with tariffs continues on in the general direction that it is going, I think that five years from now economists, and others, will regard them as having had a large impact on our economy. Maybe good, as Trump and supporters think, maybe bad, as I think, but I doubt that five years from now economists will be saying "Oh it was much ado about nothing much". That would surprise me. And if Trump reverses course, as he seems to do more often than a yo-yo, this will matter also.

The tariffs seem to be particularly under Trump's control, but of course there are other matters. The tax cut was passed by Congress, but I doubt Hillary Clinton would have signed it. Again, I think this will have significant impact.

I'm more than willing to admit to being woefully ignorant of economics. I doubt that this makes me unusual. Maybe not even unusual in an economics department. But are we really to think that these actions of Trump, or the Bush tax cuts back in 2001, or a variety of other actions over the years by various presidents, have had only a slight effect on the economy? Probably a president's choice for who heads the Fed has a big effect. Many things do. Or so I think.

A president cannot just wave a magic wand and get the result s/he wants, that I can agree to.

It defies belief that rapid change of GDP growth of 1.5-2% quarterly to projected 4+% quarterly in just a little over a year of inauguration amidst all of the actions taken by Trump are not causally related. Also record lows of unemployment, explosion of consumer confidence, explosion of business investment. And labor shortages so severe that some communities are offering bonuses to people willing to move into the communities to fill the vacant jobs.

Winstonm, the economists he cites, and others who think there is no causal effect must be smoking some strong weed.

[y66]

David Leonhardt at NYT noted recently that some good things are happening at the state level on the pre-K and Medicaid fronts:

Quote

First, Chicago announced that it would make pre-kindergarten universal. By 2021, the city’s 4-year-olds will be able to go to school full time. The pre-K classes will have a student-to-staff ratio of 10:1, as experts recommend.

Many economists believe that good preschool programs are the single most effective way to lift living standards. Research by Dartmouth’s Elizabeth Cascio has found that universal pre-K — while more expensive than targeted, income-based programs — particularly helps poor children. They benefit from being in a diverse classroom.

Of course, pre-K also helps parents with child care. “If you’re working class, your kids are getting the shaft,” Chicago’s mayor, Rahm Emanuel, who taught preschool in his 20s, told me. “You’re basically put in the position of choosing between being a good employee and a good parent.”

Best of all, Chicago fits a national pattern, and a bipartisan one. Other cities and states — Baltimore, Memphis and New York; Florida, Vermont and West Virginia — have also expanded pre-K. Nationally, about 33 percent of 4-year-olds were in state-funded pre-K last year, with another 11 percent in other public programs. It’s a major increase since the start of this century:

Last week’s other good news came from Virginia, which became the 33rd state to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. And no expansion state has later reversed course. Just as the United States is moving toward a school system that starts at age 4, it is moving — at long last — toward universal health coverage.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2018-June-04, 15:45, said:

Maybe you and others who say this could clarify a bit. Assuming that this stuff with tariffs continues on in the general direction that it is going, I think that five years from now economists, and others, will regard them as having had a large impact on our economy. Maybe good, as Trump and supporters think, maybe bad, as I think, but I doubt that five years from now economists will be saying "Oh it was much ado about nothing much". That would surprise me. And if Trump reverses course, as he seems to do more often than a yo-yo, this will matter also.

The tariffs seem to be particularly under Trump's control, but of course there are other matters. The tax cut was passed by Congress, but I doubt Hillary Clinton would have signed it. Again, I think this will have significant impact.

I'm more than willing to admit to being woefully ignorant of economics. I doubt that this makes me unusual. Maybe not even unusual in an economics department. But are we really to think that these actions of Trump, or the Bush tax cuts back in 2001, or a variety of other actions over the years by various presidents, have had only a slight effect on the economy? Probably a president's choice for who heads the Fed has a big effect. Many things do. Or so I think.

A president cannot just wave a magic wand and get the result s/he wants, that I can agree to.

The American economy is a lumbering giant that takes years to change. Presidential policies can have small short-term effects, but to understand the long term effects of any major policy change takes years. For example, there is no way to know the long term effects of tariff changes because there is give and take and adjustment on all sides.

The effects of Reagan's policies on health care costs were not fully felt until the late 1990s and into the 2000s. Likewise, we won't know the full effect of Obama's policies for many years.

The economy is not really roaring - it is continuing to recover from the crash. Sometime, probably nearer than further, there will be another recession of which the president can do nothing to prevent.

[Winstonm]

quote]Federal prosecutors accused former Trump presidential campaign chairman Paul Manafort of witness tampering late Monday in his criminal case and asked a federal judge to consider revoking or revising his release.[/quote]

Quote

Manafort, 69, has been on home confinement pending trial.

FBI agent Brock W. Domin said that one of the public relations firm’s executives identified as Person D1 told the government he “understood Manafort’s outreach to be an effort to ‘suborn perjury’ ” by encouraging others to lie to federal investigators by concealing the firm’s work in the United States.

WaPo reports.

Looks like Manafort doesn't trust the pardon power of a co-conspirator.