Jump to content
Male HQ

All USA Political Discussions (Compiled)


oralb
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest

Here's the real reason why Clinton was let off the hook. 

And it is NOT because she is innocent.  

 

https://time.com/4394178/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-investigation/

 

In a highly unusual public statement Tuesday morning, FBI director James Comey said Hillary Clinton and her aides may have violated the law in using a private email server when she was Secretary of State, but that their actions didn’t warrant criminal charges. In its year-long investigation of how government secrets got onto the server, Comey said, the FBI found “evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” but he said, “we are expressing to [the] Justice [department] our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.”

 

In the American system, justice depends not only on judges and juries, Comey said, but also on the decisions of investigators and prosecutors. Law enforcement officials “weigh a number of factors before bringing charges,” he said, and to make those decisions responsibly they must consider “the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.” Normally those calls are made behind the scenes, but Comey said because the case had received “intense public interest” he had decided to lay out why Clinton’s actions didn’t justify prosecution.

 

Comey brings nonpartisan credibility to that decision. As described in a TIME profile last March, he investigated Bill and Hillary Clinton in high profile controversies over the years, including the failed Arkansas real estate deal known as Whitewater, Bill Clinton’s last minute Presidential pardons in January 2001, and now the e-mail investigation. As George W. Bush’s Deputy Attorney General from 2003 to 2005, Comey also bucked Vice President Dick Cheney and his allies over warrantless eavesdropping and the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity.

 

From the start of the Clinton e-mail case last summer, Comey instructed his agents to pursue the investigation independently, former senior FBI official John Giacalone told TIME in March. Comey put 20-30 agents on the case full time, and they collected and read tens of thousands of e-mails, and forensically analyzed multiple servers and mobile devices used to send and receive messages. They also conducted dozens of interviews, including with Clinton and her closest aides.

 

Over the course of the investigation, the agents found thousands of emails that contained information that should have been treated as government secrets, Comey said Tuesday, including eight messages that had Top Secret information in them. All those messages had been sent or received through unsecure, unclassified channels on Clinton’s private e-mail network. And while agents found no direct evidence that the network was hacked, the FBI thinks it is possible some “hostile actors” may have done so. That combination of facts led Comey to declare Tuesday that Clinton and her aides had been “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

 

Technically speaking, that conclusion could have put Clinton in legal jeopardy. The laws regarding handling of classified information don’t authorize punishing government officials for carelessness, but they are written so broadly they come close. One section of the Espionage Act, 18USC793(f), for example, says anyone authorized to handle secrets who “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Other laws controlling government secrets are similarly broad, especially with regard to Top Secret material.

 

In practice, however, law enforcement officials have set a high bar for prosecuting violations of those laws, looking for clear criminal intent, which Comey said was absent in the Clinton case. Because the government is awash in secrets, they are regularly mishandled unintentionally. In 2013, according to the National Archives, which tracks classification, executive branch agencies created more than 77 million documents with secrets in them, including 46,800 with newly created secrets. The FBI receives dozens of referrals of leaked classified information every year, according to Justice Department declarations to Congress.

 

Prosecutors have also been wary of testing whether broad prosecutions under the espionage laws would hold up in court, especially in cases of news organizations pursuing Secret or Top Secret information for publication. In the Clinton probe, investigators found that at least some of the classified information referred to was contained in a newspaper article that aides then forwarded to Clinton.

 

To be sure, the Justice department has been aggressive in prosecuting leaks in some cases, especially under President Obama. But Clinton’s mishandling of secrets did not clear the bar for prosecution, Comey said Tuesday, when compared to other cases that have been taken to court. “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts,” Comey said.

 

Normally, that’s a judgment made in private to avoid damaging the reputation of someone investigators aren’t prepared to prosecute. Back in 2002, when he was the top U.S. prosecutor in Manhattan investigating Bill Clinton’s 11th hour pardons, Comey declined to go public with his findings. “I can’t really go into it because it was an investigation that didn’t result in charges,” Comey said at the time. “That may be a frustrating answer, but that’s the one I’m compelled to give.” On Tuesday, Comey said he was breaking with that tradition because “the American people deserve [details of the investigation] in a case of intense public interest.”

 

Comey’s statement Tuesday appeared to anger both parties. Republicans including the GOP presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan criticized Comey for deciding not to recommend charges. Clinton surrogates criticized him for choosing to publicly discuss the matter at all.

 

It remains to be seen whether either decision will shield the FBI from allegations it has been politicized four months before the November election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2022 at 2:39 AM, singalion said:

 

Steve, don't always fall trap to apparent trolls.

 

Clinton was not charged for the deletion of emails. This makes clear she did not commit any crime.

 

The trolls know this quite well.   Their "traps" are just teasing.

 

Even having a low opinion of these trolls,  it should be hard to imagine that they are so stupid, such brain-washed idiots that they believe the nonsense they post.   They are completely ignorant to begin with.  They copy their nonsense from their sources of nonsense,  the conservative shows and publications.

 

It helps to post in this thread with a spirit of sportsmanship,  knowing that what is written here has no relevance at all, beyond to the few of us who browse through it and chuckle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2022 at 6:15 AM, Guest Tru La said:

 

The bigger issues, is inequitable distribution of wealth and power. 

 

My thoughts exactly. 

 

Only China, can ensure its own sovereignty by closing its internet borders.

 

 

 

"Every monument of civilization is also a monument of barbarism"  ???

 

I think that this "Indian historian" likes to wallow in negativity.   A recent supreme Monument to Civilization is the Hubble telescope, and a new one coming is the James Webb space telescope.   It is a barbarism not to see the other side of civilization!

 

Inequitable distribution of wealth and power has been a barbarism since the start of human civilization. Some of this lack of equitability comes from the randomness of the universe.  With one optimism, we can see that today's society has less of this inequitable than in all the time before us.  But there is still a long way to go.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2022 at 9:46 PM, 7heaven said:

Apparent also has the meaning of seemingly real or true, but not necessary so. You have deliberately or unintelligibly left out this part. 
 

Don’t just look for things that fit your own narrative. 

 

That's your personal impression not presented by any dictionary. 

Assuming this is the reason why your personal interpretation of the word " apparent" was not substantiated. 

 

I wonder who's narrative that personal interpretation was supposed to fit.... 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 1:31 AM, singalion said:

 

That's your personal impression not presented by any dictionary. 

Assuming this is the reason why your personal interpretation of the word " apparent" was not substantiated. 

 

I wonder who's narrative that personal interpretation was supposed to fit.... 

 

 


The meaning of Apparent can be easily found in the dictionary. U just quoted 1 possible meaning but not the other which is -> seemingly real or true but not necessary so. 
 

Sussmann has apparently lied to FBI that led to the now debunked ties between Russia and Trump 2016 campaign. Sussmann was a Hillary campaign staff back then. What was he motive to apparently lie? Was anyone else in Hillary’s campaign involved? This needs to be investigated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2022 at 10:16 PM, 7heaven said:

 

Sussmann has apparently lied to FBI that led to the now debunked ties between Russia and Trump 2016 campaign. Sussmann was a Hillary campaign staff back then. What was he motive to apparently lie? Was anyone else in Hillary’s campaign involved? This needs to be investigated. 

 

 

So... Trump was not pissed on by naked prostitute ladies in Moscow?  Didn't the ladies spank his butt and made him crawl on his knees?  

 

Didn't Trump offer Putin the gift of a suite in an apartment building he wanted to construct if he got the contract?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2022 at 2:20 PM, Guest Clap clap said:

 

Well pointed out !! A sharp rebuke to awaken the senses of the blindly devoted fans of the demented senior..

 

 

 

The mental deranged troll that responds or quotes his own posts is back!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 12:16 PM, 7heaven said:

seemingly real or true but not necessary so. 

 

Now you argue on word nuances? a whole 3 years you accused me of picking meanings of words or word interpretations and what do you do now? 

 

To use "apparent" is defamatory and you know it. 

 

The only appropriate word is "alleged" as nobody has proven whether it was a lie or not. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 12:16 PM, 7heaven said:

Sussmann has apparently lied to FBI that led to the now debunked ties between Russia and Trump 2016 campaign. Sussmann was a Hillary campaign staff back then. What was he motive to apparently lie? Was anyone else in Hillary’s campaign involved? This needs to be investigated. 

 

There is not one single novel content in your post. 

 

It is a excessive repetition of plenty earlier posts and even with an obvious attempt to just pull in Hillaty Clinton on unsubstantiated claims.

 

Therefore:

 

Following the obsessive compulsory repetitions of already earlier posted same false content and/ or unsubstantiated claims in 7heaven's above posts, in the interest of 7heaven's state of health and well being and in consideration of his personal mental condition I am not going to post any response  on 7heaven's excessively repeated reposts of same content.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 1:33 PM, singalion said:

 

Now you argue on word nuances? a whole 3 years you accused me of picking meanings of words or word interpretations and what do you do now? 

 

To use "apparent" is defamatory and you know it. 

 

The only appropriate word is "alleged" as nobody has proven whether it was a lie or not. 

 

 

 


I am not arguing on the nuances of Apparent. The use of word Apparent to characterise Sussmann indictment is nowhere near defamatory.


Apparent can mean seemingly real or true but not necessarily true which can be easily found in the dictionary but yet you claimed it is not. Perhaps such meaning does not exist in your own version of dictionary. Lol. 
 

On 2/2/2022 at 1:31 AM, singalion said:

 

That's your personal impression not presented by any dictionary. 

 

Sussmann apparently lied to FBI that led to the investigation of the now debunked ties between Russia and Trump 2016 campaign. There is nothing wrong with such statement as investigators and the grand jury got enough evidence to indict him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 1:36 PM, singalion said:

 

There is not one single novel content in your post. 

 

It is a excessive repetition of plenty earlier posts and even with an obvious attempt to just pull in Hillaty Clinton on unsubstantiated claims.

 

Therefore:

 

Following the obsessive compulsory repetitions of already earlier posted same false content and/ or unsubstantiated claims in 7heaven's above posts, in the interest of 7heaven's state of health and well being and in consideration of his personal mental condition I am not going to post any response  on 7heaven's excessively repeated reposts of same content.

 


Sussmann is in Hillary 2016 campaign team. His indictment deals with the apparent lie he made to FBI that got Hillary’s opponent investigated. The coincidence is too perfect and there needs to be thorough investigation who else in Hillary team may be involved, is there a mastermind, who else knows about it etc. it could be nothing or something; we’d never know till the pros finished digging. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
On 2/2/2022 at 1:36 PM, singalion said:

There is not one single novel content in your post. 

 

We are looking for facts in the posts, and not those fictitious "novel" content which you are always dreaming up with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 12:36 PM, Steve5380 said:

 

So... Trump was not pissed on by naked prostitute ladies in Moscow?  Didn't the ladies spank his butt and made him crawl on his knees?  

 

Didn't Trump offer Putin the gift of a suite in an apartment building he wanted to construct if he got the contract?


Not sure. It is as not sure as us not knowing who are buying Hunter Biden’s artworks. 
 

Who are buying those artworks made by Hunter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 4:32 AM, 7heaven said:


Not sure. It is as not sure as us not knowing who are buying Hunter Biden’s artworks. 
 

Who are buying those artworks made by Hunter?

 

Yeah,  we don't know.   Also we don't know how much Trump likes to bottom.  Many straight guys like to have something stuck in it. Maybe the naked prostitute girls not only spanked him,  but also gave him long trances of delight with big dildos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 3:08 PM, 7heaven said:

I am not arguing on the nuances of Apparent. The use of word Apparent to characterise Sussmann indictment is nowhere near defamatory.


Apparent can mean seemingly real or true but not necessarily true which can be easily found in the dictionary but yet you claimed it is not. Perhaps such meaning does not exist in your own version of dictionary. Lol. 

 

the apparent problem is that you like to jump on one definition your found somewhere but ignore the more apparent definitions from the dictionaries to make your case.

 

Here you have the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries. (Also with British English and American English. )

 

 

 

apparent

(əpærənt )
1. adjective [ADJECTIVE noun]
An apparent situation, quality, or feeling seems to exist, although you cannot be certain that it does exist.
I was a bit depressed by our apparent lack of progress.
There is at last an apparent end to the destructive price war.
 
2. adjective [verb-link ADJECTIVE]
If something is apparent to you, it is clear and obvious to you.
It has been apparent that in other areas standards have held up well.
The presence of a star is already apparent in the early film.
 
 
 

apparent

adjective
 
/əˈpærənt/
 
/əˈpærənt/
  1.  
    [not usually before noun] easy to see or understand synonym obvious
    • Their devotion was apparent.
    • Then, for no apparent reason, the train suddenly stopped.
    • apparent from something that… It was apparent from her face that she was really upset.
    • apparent to somebody that… It soon became apparent to everyone that he couldn't sing.
    • apparent that… It's readily apparent that she has a gift for this kind of writing.
    • apparent from something No damage was apparent from a brain scan.
    • apparent to somebody The consequences of our actions are not immediately apparent to us.
    Synonyms clear
 
apparent
adjective
 
uk
 
/əˈpær.ənt/ us
 
/əˈper.ənt/
 
B2
able to be seen or understood:
Her unhappiness was apparent to everyone.
[ + that ] It was becoming increasingly apparent that he could no longer take care of himself.
I was on the metro this morning when, for no apparent reason, the man opposite me suddenly screamed.
Thesaurus: synonyms, antonyms, and examples
  • obviousIt's obvious that she's upset.
  • clearIt was clear that he was unhappy.
  • apparentHer joy was apparent to everyone.
  • plainHis disappointment was plain to see.
  • evidentThe company president was impressed by her evident ambition.
  • manifestHis manifest lack of interest has provoked severe criticism.
See more results »
There are one or two apparent discrepancies between the two reports.
She has this apparent innocence which, I suspect, she uses to her advantage.
 

apparent | American Dictionary

 
apparent
adjective
 
us
 
/əˈpær·ənt, -ˈpeər-/
 
able to be seen or understood:
[ + that clause ] It was becoming increasingly apparent that he could no longer look after himself.
Apparent also means seeming to be true:
The apparent cause of death was drowning, but further tests were needed.
 
 
=> wrong to use apparent in this context.
 
 
Your only intention was to frame Sussmann as a liar.
 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 3:14 PM, 7heaven said:

Sussmann is in Hillary 2016 campaign team. His indictment deals with the apparent lie he made to FBI that got Hillary’s opponent investigated. The coincidence is too perfect and there needs to be thorough investigation who else in Hillary team may be involved, is there a mastermind, who else knows about it etc. it could be nothing or something; we’d never know till the pros finished digging. 

 

 

This is another repetition of same content from  earlier posts

 

Therefore:

Following the apparent obsessive and compulsory repetitions of already earlier posted same false content and/ or unsubstantiated claims in 7heaven's above posts, in the interest of 7heaven's state of health and well being and in consideration of his personal mental condition I am not going to post any response  on 7heaven's excessively repeated reposts of same content.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2022 at 12:11 AM, singalion said:

 

the apparent problem is that you like to jump on one definition your found somewhere but ignore the more apparent definitions from the dictionaries to make your case.

 

Here you have the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries. (Also with British English and American English. )

 

 

 

apparent

(əpærənt )
1. adjective [ADJECTIVE noun]
An apparent situation, quality, or feeling seems to exist, although you cannot be certain that it does exist.
I was a bit depressed by our apparent lack of progress.
There is at last an apparent end to the destructive price war.
 
2. adjective [verb-link ADJECTIVE]
If something is apparent to you, it is clear and obvious to you.
It has been apparent that in other areas standards have held up well.
The presence of a star is already apparent in the early film.
 
 
 

apparent

adjective
 
/əˈpærənt/
 
/əˈpærənt/
  1.  
    [not usually before noun] easy to see or understand synonym obvious
    • Their devotion was apparent.
    • Then, for no apparent reason, the train suddenly stopped.
    • apparent from something that… It was apparent from her face that she was really upset.
    • apparent to somebody that… It soon became apparent to everyone that he couldn't sing.
    • apparent that… It's readily apparent that she has a gift for this kind of writing.
    • apparent from something No damage was apparent from a brain scan.
    • apparent to somebody The consequences of our actions are not immediately apparent to us.
    Synonyms clear
 
apparent
adjective
 
uk
 
/əˈpær.ənt/ us
 
/əˈper.ənt/
 
B2
able to be seen or understood:
Her unhappiness was apparent to everyone.
[ + that ] It was becoming increasingly apparent that he could no longer take care of himself.
I was on the metro this morning when, for no apparent reason, the man opposite me suddenly screamed.
Thesaurus: synonyms, antonyms, and examples
  • obviousIt's obvious that she's upset.
  • clearIt was clear that he was unhappy.
  • apparentHer joy was apparent to everyone.
  • plainHis disappointment was plain to see.
  • evidentThe company president was impressed by her evident ambition.
  • manifestHis manifest lack of interest has provoked severe criticism.
See more results »
There are one or two apparent discrepancies between the two reports.
She has this apparent innocence which, I suspect, she uses to her advantage.
 

apparent | American Dictionary

 
apparent
adjective
 
us
 
/əˈpær·ənt, -ˈpeər-/
 
able to be seen or understood:
[ + that clause ] It was becoming increasingly apparent that he could no longer look after himself.
Apparent also means seeming to be true:
The apparent cause of death was drowning, but further tests were needed.
 
 
=> wrong to use apparent in this context.
 
 
Your only intention was to frame Sussmann as a liar.
 
 
 


The clear problem is that you always like to find things or definitions that fit your narrative to falsely accuse people of things that they did not say. 
 

It is abundantly correct to use apparent lie by Summann to FBI. Investigations are ongoing to determine the truth and uncover potentially more lies. 
 

Here you have the Merriam-Webster dictionary. 

 

apparent

 adjective
ap·par·ent |  \ ə-ˈper-ənt   , -ˈpa-rənt  \

Definition of apparent

 

1: open to view : VISIBLEThe changes were readily apparent.
2: clear or manifest to the understandingfor reasons that are apparent
3: appearing as actual to the eye or mindwas in apparent danger
4: manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid // died of an apparent heart attackThe air of spontaneity is perhaps more apparent than real.— J. R. Sutherland
5law : having an indefeasible right to succeed to a title or estate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 11:02 PM, Steve5380 said:

 

Yeah,  we don't know.   Also we don't know how much Trump likes to bottom.  Many straight guys like to have something stuck in it. Maybe the naked prostitute girls not only spanked him,  but also gave him long trances of delight with big dildos. 


Don’t know. We don’t know what where in the emails deleted by Hillary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2022 at 12:12 AM, singalion said:

 

 

This is another repetition of same content from  earlier posts

 

Therefore:

Following the apparent obsessive and compulsory repetitions of already earlier posted same false content and/ or unsubstantiated claims in 7heaven's above posts, in the interest of 7heaven's state of health and well being and in consideration of his personal mental condition I am not going to post any response  on 7heaven's excessively repeated reposts of same content.

 


As is Singalion new found tactic, he diverts and claims to care about people mental health when he has been roundly defeat in debates and cannot rebuke even with his imagined world reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 11:25 AM, 7heaven said:


Don’t know. We don’t know what where in the emails deleted by Hillary. 

 

Yes, we don't know.  Otherwise, we may discover from her emails that Hillary was one of the naked ladies who spanked Trump's bottom and stuck some big dildos in his ass  (coke and sprite bottles).   This explains why Trump hates Hillary so much.

.

Edited by Steve5380
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2022 at 1:28 AM, Steve5380 said:

 

Yes, we don't know.  Otherwise, we may discover from her emails that Hillary was one of the naked ladies who spanked Trump's bottom and stuck some big dildos in his ass  (coke and sprite bottles).   This explains why Trump hates Hillary so much.

.


We can make things up with what we don’t know about those emails deleted by Hillary. It’s only our imagination that is stopping what we make up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2022 at 1:27 AM, 7heaven said:

As is Singalion new found tactic, he diverts and claims to care about people mental health when he has been roundly defeat in debates and cannot rebuke even with his imagined world reasons. 

 

While any defeat just exists in your own imagination...

 

People with common sense are able to conclude that your excessive repetitions of the same content are an obvious sign of mental issues. 

 

Nobody here repeats exactly same content that obsessively and compulsively. 

 

 

 

Edited by singalion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2022 at 1:16 PM, singalion said:

 

While any defeat just exists in your own imagination...

 

People with common sense are able to conclude that your excessive repetitions of the same content are an obvious sign of mental issues. 

 

Nobody here repeats exactly same content that obsessively and compulsively. 

 

 

But he could put his tendency to repeat the same over and over, to good use

 

by becoming a Hindu or Buddhist monk.  A monk who recites mantras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today the US executed a raid in an ISIS holdout in Syria,  where the ISIS leader ( a coward scumbag ) blew himself up killing also his family, and where his first lieutenant fired at the US commandos and was also exterminated!  What a fortunate cleaning exercise that transferred some souls to the depth of HELL!  Biden was in the command room watching the operation,  like Obama watched the extermination of Bin Laden. 

 

Biden also ordered 3,000 American troops to east Europe to assist with the defenses against a Russian attack on Ukraine. 

 

Sooo... President Biden does not seem to be any weakling!  The man has courage, with his two balls well in place.  What a difference from the previous President,  who in Biden's shoes would have kissed Putin's ass and opened Ukraine for him to march in... in exchange for Putin's meddling in the US elections to favor him. 

 

It seems that we have again a decent President in America,  a man who has morality and the necessary courage to confront the dangers of his country.  These dangers are not only to America, but to most of the free world.

 

Biden is no Chamberlain,  the British minister who after Hitler invaded Poland, he let him keep control if it in exchange of a promise not to invade other countries.   Putin is also saying that he will not invade Ukraine. But Biden does not trust him at all! 

 

By standing up to Putin and eliminating the head of ISIS,  Biden is favoring the world,  surely including Singapore as well. So you anti-Biden extremists here should do better by thanking him!  :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2022 at 3:16 AM, singalion said:

 

While any defeat just exists in your own imagination...

 

People with common sense are able to conclude that your excessive repetitions of the same content are an obvious sign of mental issues. 

 

Nobody here repeats exactly same content that obsessively and compulsively. 

 

 

 


People with common sense will know the reasons for my emphasis of certain critical points to negate your gaslighting of Biden’s multiple failures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2022 at 9:16 AM, Steve5380 said:

Today the US executed a raid in an ISIS holdout in Syria,  where the ISIS leader ( a coward scumbag ) blew himself up killing also his family, and where his first lieutenant fired at the US commandos and was also exterminated!  What a fortunate cleaning exercise that transferred some souls to the depth of HELL!  Biden was in the command room watching the operation,  like Obama watched the extermination of Bin Laden. 

 

Biden also ordered 3,000 American troops to east Europe to assist with the defenses against a Russian attack on Ukraine. 

 

Sooo... President Biden does not seem to be any weakling!  The man has courage, with his two balls well in place.  What a difference from the previous President,  who in Biden's shoes would have kissed Putin's ass and opened Ukraine for him to march in... in exchange for Putin's meddling in the US elections to favor him. 

 

It seems that we have again a decent President in America,  a man who has morality and the necessary courage to confront the dangers of his country.  These dangers are not only to America, but to most of the free world.

 

Biden is no Chamberlain,  the British minister who after Hitler invaded Poland, he let him keep control if it in exchange of a promise not to invade other countries.   Putin is also saying that he will not invade Ukraine. But Biden does not trust him at all! 

 

By standing up to Putin and eliminating the head of ISIS,  Biden is favoring the world,  surely including Singapore as well. So you anti-Biden extremists here should do better by thanking him!  :) 


Biden did not stop Putin and Russia for Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Europe. This is surely a show of strength by Biden when ironically he talked about climate change and cancelled pipelines in his own backyard. 
 

Biden sent 3000 troops? How effective will they be when Russia has 100,000+troops surrounding Ukraine. And what was Biden doing while those 100,000+ were building up? 
 

Back at home, crime and murder rates have been surging since Biden took office. He and his Democrats members leadership are weak on crime in large part due to their defund the police rhetorics. So much for a decent President who has necessary courage to confront the dangers of his country. 

Edited by 7heaven
u
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Whatever
On 2/4/2022 at 9:16 AM, Steve5380 said:

Today the US executed a raid in an ISIS holdout in Syria,  where the ISIS leader ( a coward scumbag ) blew himself up killing also his family, and where his first lieutenant fired at the US commandos and was also exterminated!  What a fortunate cleaning exercise that transferred some souls to the depth of HELL!  Biden was in the command room watching the operation,  like Obama watched the extermination of Bin Laden. 

 

Biden also ordered 3,000 American troops to east Europe to assist with the defenses against a Russian attack on Ukraine. 

 

Sooo... President Biden does not seem to be any weakling!  The man has courage, with his two balls well in place.  What a difference from the previous President,  who in Biden's shoes would have kissed Putin's ass and opened Ukraine for him to march in... in exchange for Putin's meddling in the US elections to favor him. 

 

It seems that we have again a decent President in America,  a man who has morality and the necessary courage to confront the dangers of his country.  These dangers are not only to America, but to most of the free world.

 

Biden is no Chamberlain,  the British minister who after Hitler invaded Poland, he let him keep control if it in exchange of a promise not to invade other countries.   Putin is also saying that he will not invade Ukraine. But Biden does not trust him at all! 

 

By standing up to Putin and eliminating the head of ISIS,  Biden is favoring the world,  surely including Singapore as well. So you anti-Biden extremists here should do better by thanking him!  :) 

 

Indeed, praises from a nonsensical blindly devoted  fan..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2022 at 9:24 PM, Guest Whatever said:

 

Indeed, praises from a nonsensical blindly devoted  fan..

 

 

Sorry Whatever (!) that I cannot be a fan of ISIS,  a fan of Putin,  a fan of Hitler, nor a fan of... anti-Bidens like you are. :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2022 at 9:24 AM, 7heaven said:


People with common sense will know the reasons for my emphasis of certain critical points to negate your gaslighting of Biden’s multiple failures.

 

what has Hillary Clinton or Sussmann to do with Biden?

 

Is that a story, most probably a fabrication by Durham to save his ass before receiving extreme backlash by Trump for not having found anything to support Trump's even weirder theories (or narrative to deflect from Trump's own wrongdoings)...

 

 

 

Monday, September 20, 2021, 12:21 PM

Attorney General William Barr appointed John Durham, lo these increasingly-many years ago, to investigate a supposed scandal inside the FBI: There had been an attempted coup, President Trump alleged, and Barr himself hinted that there had been an effort spuriously to investigate a candidate for president. The FBI counterintelligence investigation of figures surrounding Donald Trump, the attorney general warned darkly, may have begun earlier than the FBI said it did. It may not have been properly predicated. There may have been other agencies involved. 

Durham himself at times lent his solid reputation as a career prosecutor to such fantasies. When the Justice Department’s inspector general found that the investigation of L’Affaire Russe had been properly predicated and had, in fact, begun when the FBI always said it had, Durham publicly questioned the judgment. He also has taken a mind-bogglingly long time to complete his as-yet almost-wholly unproductive investigation, which has gone on longer than the Mueller investigation itself, building up expectations among many Trump supporters that Durham was going to deliver the goods.

And until this week, Durham’s investigation had added exactly zero new facts to the public’s understanding of the FBI’s handling of the Russia matters. The only case he had brought—against a low-level FBI lawyer for for altering a document in connection with a surveillance application—was entirely derivative of facts developed by the inspector general. Durham had, beyond that one case, issued no findings or reports and had charged nobody with anything.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story even gets better:

 

How much does such special investigator earn per month? 

 

 

On the Special Counsel’s Weird Prosecution of Michael Sussmann

 Monday, September 20, 2021, 12:21 PM

 

 

...

 

And until this week, Durham’s investigation had added exactly zero new facts to the public’s understanding of the FBI’s handling of the Russia matters. The only case he had brought—against a low-level FBI lawyer for altering a document in connection with a surveillance application—was entirely derivative of facts developed by the inspector general. Durham had, beyond that one case, issued no findings or reports and had charged nobody with anything. He had merely existed and, by existing, allowed expectations and conspiracy theories to swirl around him.

But now Durham has spoken on his own. He has indicted a cybersecurity lawyer named Michael Sussmann for allegedly making a single false statement in a conversation in 2016 with then-FBI General Counsel Jim Baker. The allegedly false statement concerned not Trump or Russia, but whom Sussmann represented when he brought Baker some information about an alleged electronic connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2022 at 9:16 AM, Steve5380 said:

Biden is no Chamberlain,  the British minister who after Hitler invaded Poland, he let him keep control if it in exchange of a promise not to invade other countries.   Putin is also saying that he will not invade Ukraine. But Biden does not trust him at all! 

 

 

That is historically extremely inaccurate.

 

I don't even need to look it up.

 

The invasion of the Germans to Poland on 1 Sep 1939 led to the Second World War.

 

However that appeasement issue with Chamberlain did not concern Poland but the Sudete parts in Czechoslovakia that was finalised in 1938 through the Munich accord, where the West allies conceded parts of Czechoslovakia to Germany in exchange of a promise not to annex more land in Eastern Europe.

 

Conceded territory of the Sudete illustrated by the red parts in Oct 1038.

 

 

sudetenland-map-munich-agreement-1938

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2022 at 9:36 AM, 7heaven said:

Biden did not stop Putin and Russia for Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Europe.

Biden sent 3000 troops? How effective will they be when Russia has 100,000+troops surrounding Ukraine. And what was Biden doing while those 100,000+ were building up? 
 

 

 

Russia has every right to congregate 100,000 soldiers at any part of Russia's territory.

 

Ukraine is not part of the Nato. The US cannot just place US soldiers into Ukraine.

 

However, Russia has no legitimate right to enter into Ukraine and to extend the annexation of the Crimea peninsula.

 

Placing huge numbers of US soldiers into Ukraine seems to be like throwing petrol into a fire...

 

Your posts on this subject disclose vast lack of knowledge on the issues involved and can be judged as extremely short sighted if not childish.

It is again some ill reflected statement just in attempting to paint a negative image on Biden by any means available even if as illogical as possible.

 

May I also remind you that there was an ignorant US president just recently who intended to withdraw 30% of the US soldiers from Europe .... if that wasn't appeasement policy towards Russia?

 

Even Republican Senators criticised Trump harshly for his ignorance and deranged military policy.

 

It was Biden who reversed the troop withdrawal implemented and decided by Trump.

 

Biden Freezes Trump’s Withdrawal of 12,000 Troops From Germany

 

Published Feb. 4, 2021Updated April 13, 2021

WASHINGTON — President Biden is freezing plans to withdraw 12,000 American troops from Germany, administration officials said on Thursday

 

 

Trump approves plan to withdraw one-third of U.S. troops from Germany

June 5, 2020
 

President Trump has signed off on a plan to permanently withdraw up to one-third of about 34,500 U.S. troops currently based in Germany, bringing the total down to no more than 25,000, according to U.S. officials.

But as word of the plan became public, Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called Trump’s order “petty and preposterous.”

“It’s another favor to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and another leadership failure by this Administration that further strains relations with our allies,” Reed said in a statement issued by his office on Friday.

 

Trump orders large withdrawal of US forces from Germany

June 6, 2020

 

Perhaps only Donald Trump could turn a withdrawal of troops into an act of aggression.

The U.S. president has directed the Pentagon to reduce sharply the number of U.S. military forces stationed in Germany, where a heavy presence of GIs has long served as a symbol of Washington’s commitment to protecting its European allies.

 

The White House would not confirm the plan, which was first reported Friday by the Wall Street Journal, but current and former officials familiar with it said Trump would cap the U.S. military presence at 25,000 — requiring a reduction of nearly 30 percent, or roughly 9,700 troops.

 

As of March 31, there were 34,674 U.S. military personnel stationed in Germany, including 20,774 from the Army and 12,980 from the Air Force, according to the most recent publicly-available Pentagon deployment report. 

 

 

US president stuns NATO allies, including Germany, with unilateral move seen as benefit to Russia.

 

Stoltenberg has pointed to the increased U.S. presence as part of NATO’s effort to step up deterrence against an increasingly aggressive and assertive Russia. Moscow undoubtedly will cheer any reduction in the U.S. military footprint in Europe, which the Kremlin has regarded as a menacing presence since the days of the Cold War.

Retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, former commander of U.S. Army Europe, told POLITICO that the withdrawal of troops was not justified by strategic thinking or analysis.

“I believe this is a colossal mistake,” said Hodges, who now holds the Pershing chair in Strategic Studies at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a think tank. “This is purely political.”

 

Hodges said that the move had caught virtually everyone by surprise, from the Pentagon and Congress to U.S. diplomats and military officials in Europe, NATO leaders and allies, especially Germany. Hodges said that Russia would be a main beneficiary of the withdrawal — and that a softening of U.S. posture was hardly justified.

“The Kremlin has done nothing to deserve a gift like this,” he said. “No change in behavior in Ukraine or Syria or along NATO’s eastern flank or in the Black Sea or Georgia, Yet they get a 28 percent reduction in the size of U.S. military capability that was a core part of NATO’s deterrence.”

 

 

Edited by singalion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
On 2/4/2022 at 9:16 AM, Steve5380 said:

Today the US executed a raid in an ISIS holdout in Syria,  where the ISIS leader ( a coward scumbag ) blew himself up killing also his family, and where his first lieutenant fired at the US commandos and was also exterminated!  What a fortunate cleaning exercise that transferred some souls to the depth of HELL!  Biden was in the command room watching the operation,  like Obama watched the extermination of Bin Laden. 

 

Biden also ordered 3,000 American troops to east Europe to assist with the defenses against a Russian attack on Ukraine. 

 

Sooo... President Biden does not seem to be any weakling!  The man has courage, with his two balls well in place.  What a difference from the previous President,  who in Biden's shoes would have kissed Putin's ass and opened Ukraine for him to march in... in exchange for Putin's meddling in the US elections to favor him. 

 

It seems that we have again a decent President in America,  a man who has morality and the necessary courage to confront the dangers of his country.  These dangers are not only to America, but to most of the free world.

 

Biden is no Chamberlain,  the British minister who after Hitler invaded Poland, he let him keep control if it in exchange of a promise not to invade other countries.   Putin is also saying that he will not invade Ukraine. But Biden does not trust him at all! 

 

By standing up to Putin and eliminating the head of ISIS,  Biden is favoring the world,  surely including Singapore as well. So you anti-Biden extremists here should do better by thanking him!  :) 

 

His invasion is nothing more then just a distraction from all his failures, both overseas and domestically. If he's really so interested in taking down ISIS, he would not have withdrawn from Afghanistan in such a haste, to the extent that he even left BILLIONS worth of high tech weapons to the Afghanistanians, and even left hundreds of American citizens behind. This just goes to show his desperation to score brownie points for himself this time.

 

And even right now, there are UNICEF reports of 6 civilian children who died in the attacks. And they were not injured in the blast, but by gunshot wounds. Let's see how this pans out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Singling out one government or one single President and blaming everything on one President seems a bit too simplistic.

 

Europe is also suffering record inflation, record oil prices, supply chain bottlenecks and plenty of similar issues as the US.

 

The Covid death surge is a result of reluctant Americans getting inoculated and the manipulative spread of falsehoods and wrong "freedom approaches" by certain US state governors.

They probably aim to hinder the implementation of protective measures and intend to shift blame to a president, while they themself did nothing to ease the situation, force US citizens to wear masks and adhere to safe distancing and even prevented common sense policies. 

The death toll exactly shows in the US what states took the wrong approach.

You just need to look what States have the lowest vaccination rates to see what also have the highest death toll.

 

It is also quite clear that a certain political party took every measure possible to sensationalise anything to just blame one other party. Here you can take the death toll from crime and murders.

Look again what US states have the highest death tolls from murders. The top ranking one's are Republican run US states with lax gun distribution rules...

 

The problem is demagoguery and manipulation, what has been seen with the fact checking of claims made by an Ex president. It takes effort and time for the media or renown institutions to combat those falsehoods. But that is the strategy of these populist demagogues to create quick gains by spreading misleading falsehoods or to create an impact built on manipulation and misrepresentation.

But such policy is short sighted because later it will cause backlash when the policy fails to materialise.

 

Just look at the economic promises made by the previous US administration.

It did not bite, it did not built in.

Despite the more protectionist economic policy, investment and jobs shifted overseas and were not created within the US. The tax policy did not help the middle class or poorer and the rich did not create the amount of manufacturing jobs within the US that were promised.

 

I was the one who predicted early that it won't be easy for the current president by reasoning that his majority is too slim. And this exactly happened in the first year.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2022 at 9:36 AM, 7heaven said:

Back at home, crime and murder rates have been surging since Biden took office. He and his Democrats members leadership are weak on crime in large part due to their defund the police rhetorics. So much for a decent President who has necessary courage to confront the dangers of his country. 

 

You are as often not up to date.

 

Biden was never supporting a "defunding" policy and your blame on him just goes fail.

 

The fact is that you are still in ignorance that inequalities exist in the treatment of Blacks compared to whites in the US.

 

It is a fact that the "chance" of a black (innocent) person for being killed in the US by police officers is much higher than for a white criminal. It is also a fact that an (innocent) black is judged more often as guilty by criminal juries than a white criminal. The last months there had been various black prisoners released due to unjust jury results.

 

There is nothing wrong in making police forces or the public aware of such existing inequalities and bias.

 

Getting gun distribution more stringent and controlled might be the right direction also.

 

 

Biden in NYC: 'The answer is not to defund the police'

The Hill, By Alex Gangitano - 02/03/22 02:14 PM EST 2,873

 

President Biden on Thursday said he is against defunding the police while promoting the administration’s efforts to curb gun violence in New York City. 

 

“Mayor Adams, you and I agree, the answer is not to abandon our streets, that’s not the answer,” he said, referring to New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D).

 

“The answer is to come together, police and communities, building trust and making us all safer. The answer is not to defund the police, it’s to give you the tools, the training, the funding to be partners, to be protectors and the community needs you, know the community,” Biden added in remarks at One Police Plaza, the headquarters of the NYPD in Lower Manhattan. 

 

He called for increased funding for community policing and for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and the U.S. Marshalls office, arguing that monetary support will help reduce violence.

 

“We're not about defunding, we’re about funding and providing the additional services you need beyond someone with a gun strapped to their shoulder,” he said.

 

The president added that there should be more social workers and mental health workers working with police. 

 

“We need more people who when you’re called on these scenes and someone’s about to jump off a roof, there’s not just someone standing there with a weapon, it’s also someone who knows how to talk to people, talk them down,” he said.

“We can’t expect you to do every single solitary thing that needs to be done to keep a community safe,” said added, referring to police.

 

Biden's proposed budget, which he has urged Congress to pass, calls for an increase in funding for local law enforcement that would boost community policing.

 

Biden’s visit follows multiple police fatalities in New York City this year. Two officers, Wilbert Mora and Jason Riversa, were recently killed in Harlem while responding to a domestic disturbance call.

 

The White House has worked to push back on accusations that Biden is in favor of defunding the police, a popular progressive movement that conservatives have attempted to tie Biden to. 

 

 

Biden’s visit follows multiple police fatalities in New York City this year. Two officers, Wilbert Mora and Jason Riversa, were recently killed in Harlem while responding to a domestic disturbance call.

 

The White House has worked to push back on accusations that Biden is in favor of defunding the police, a popular progressive movement that conservatives have attempted to tie Biden to. 

 

Biden was joined on his visit to New York by Attorney General Merrick Garland, as well as Adams, New York Gov. Hochul (D) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

 

The Biden administration earlier announced measures to cut down on gun violence, including bringing federal charges against individuals who use ghost guns, which are made from kits and are difficult to track.

 

Garland is also directing U.S. attorneys to prioritize federal prosecutions of those who illegally sell or transfer firearms that end up being used in violent crimes and announced a new initiative seeking to curb drug-related violence and overdose deaths.

 

 

Edited by singalion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2022 at 6:58 PM, singalion said:

 

You are as often not up to date.

 

Biden was never supporting a "defunding" policy and your blame on him just goes fail.

 

The fact is that you are still in ignorance that inequalities exist in the treatment of Blacks compared to whites in the US.

 

It is a fact that the "chance" of a black (innocent) person for being killed in the US by police officers is much higher than for a white criminal. It is also a fact that an (innocent) black is judged more often as guilty by criminal juries than a white criminal. The last months there had been various black prisoners released due to unjust jury results.

 

There is nothing wrong in making police forces or the public aware of such existing inequalities and bias.

 

Getting gun distribution more stringent and controlled might be the right direction also.

 

 

Biden in NYC: 'The answer is not to defund the police'

The Hill, By Alex Gangitano - 02/03/22 02:14 PM EST 2,873

 

President Biden on Thursday said he is against defunding the police while promoting the administration’s efforts to curb gun violence in New York City. 

 

“Mayor Adams, you and I agree, the answer is not to abandon our streets, that’s not the answer,” he said, referring to New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D).

 

“The answer is to come together, police and communities, building trust and making us all safer. The answer is not to defund the police, it’s to give you the tools, the training, the funding to be partners, to be protectors and the community needs you, know the community,” Biden added in remarks at One Police Plaza, the headquarters of the NYPD in Lower Manhattan. 

 

He called for increased funding for community policing and for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and the U.S. Marshalls office, arguing that monetary support will help reduce violence.

 

“We're not about defunding, we’re about funding and providing the additional services you need beyond someone with a gun strapped to their shoulder,” he said.

 

The president added that there should be more social workers and mental health workers working with police. 

 

“We need more people who when you’re called on these scenes and someone’s about to jump off a roof, there’s not just someone standing there with a weapon, it’s also someone who knows how to talk to people, talk them down,” he said.

“We can’t expect you to do every single solitary thing that needs to be done to keep a community safe,” said added, referring to police.

 

Biden's proposed budget, which he has urged Congress to pass, calls for an increase in funding for local law enforcement that would boost community policing.

 

Biden’s visit follows multiple police fatalities in New York City this year. Two officers, Wilbert Mora and Jason Riversa, were recently killed in Harlem while responding to a domestic disturbance call.

 

The White House has worked to push back on accusations that Biden is in favor of defunding the police, a popular progressive movement that conservatives have attempted to tie Biden to. 

 

 

Biden’s visit follows multiple police fatalities in New York City this year. Two officers, Wilbert Mora and Jason Riversa, were recently killed in Harlem while responding to a domestic disturbance call.

 

The White House has worked to push back on accusations that Biden is in favor of defunding the police, a popular progressive movement that conservatives have attempted to tie Biden to. 

 

Biden was joined on his visit to New York by Attorney General Merrick Garland, as well as Adams, New York Gov. Hochul (D) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

 

The Biden administration earlier announced measures to cut down on gun violence, including bringing federal charges against individuals who use ghost guns, which are made from kits and are difficult to track.

 

Garland is also directing U.S. attorneys to prioritize federal prosecutions of those who illegally sell or transfer firearms that end up being used in violent crimes and announced a new initiative seeking to curb drug-related violence and overdose deaths.

 

 


Biden was very quiet when his fellow Democrats were calling for defund the police when he was still a candidate in 2020. Even last year when he became president, he did not stand up and call out those Democrats like AOC and Ilan Omar for calling for defund the police.

 

It was only when more and more police officers such as Jason Rivera and Wilbert Mora both young police officers were killed in New York that Biden appear in New York this week. This shows that he is reactive rather than proactive and with mid-term elections looming, he has to be shown to be doing on this issue. 
 

Any perceived inequality between races are no justification to call for defund the police. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2022 at 7:20 PM, 7heaven said:


Biden was very quiet when his fellow Democrats were calling for defund the police when he was still a candidate in 2020. Even last year when he became president, he did not stand up and call out those Democrats like AOC and Ilan Omar for calling for defund the police.

 

It was only when more and more police officers such as Jason Rivera and Wilbert Mora both young police officers were killed in New York that Biden appear in New York this week. This shows that he is reactive rather than proactive and with mid-term elections looming, he has to be shown to be doing on this issue. 
 

Any perceived inequality between races are no justification to call for defund the police. 

 

It is obvious you intend to fabricate any story line just to thrash Biden by any means. 

 

During the canditade selection process and primaries it wasn't even clear that Biden would make it. The first primaries he nearly dropped out. 

 

I think you would invent anything to create a negative image on Biden (and probably any other Democratic president.. )

 

Trump didn't disclose during his 2020 campaign that he would instigate the storming of the Congress and deploy the National guard for photo shoots at churches during protests...

 

Now as Biden made public his policy on the police force you still prefer to throw more ( fabricated) smear on him? 

 

Obvious that you lost any objectivity to view things through neutral lenses. 

 

 

But good that you show the BW readers your agit-prop. Then they all know what to take from your post. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
On 2/4/2022 at 6:45 PM, singalion said:

 

Singling out one government or one single President and blaming everything on one President seems a bit too simplistic.

 

Europe is also suffering record inflation, record oil prices, supply chain bottlenecks and plenty of similar issues as the US.

 

The Covid death surge is a result of reluctant Americans getting inoculated and the manipulative spread of falsehoods and wrong "freedom approaches" by certain US state governors.

They probably aim to hinder the implementation of protective measures and intend to shift blame to a president, while they themself did nothing to ease the situation, force US citizens to wear masks and adhere to safe distancing and even prevented common sense policies. 

The death toll exactly shows in the US what states took the wrong approach.

You just need to look what States have the lowest vaccination rates to see what also have the highest death toll.

 

It is also quite clear that a certain political party took every measure possible to sensationalise anything to just blame one other party. Here you can take the death toll from crime and murders.

Look again what US states have the highest death tolls from murders. The top ranking one's are Republican run US states with lax gun distribution rules...

 

The problem is demagoguery and manipulation, what has been seen with the fact checking of claims made by an Ex president. It takes effort and time for the media or renown institutions to combat those falsehoods. But that is the strategy of these populist demagogues to create quick gains by spreading misleading falsehoods or to create an impact built on manipulation and misrepresentation.

But such policy is short sighted because later it will cause backlash when the policy fails to materialise.

 

Just look at the economic promises made by the previous US administration.

It did not bite, it did not built in.

Despite the more protectionist economic policy, investment and jobs shifted overseas and were not created within the US. The tax policy did not help the middle class or poorer and the rich did not create the amount of manufacturing jobs within the US that were promised.

 

I was the one who predicted early that it won't be easy for the current president by reasoning that his majority is too slim. And this exactly happened in the first year.

 

Oh! Look who's now talking about singling out a single President to blame? When Donald Trump lost the election, who was singling him out for everything that went wrong, even into the first year of Biden's presidency? Now that the tables are turned, and Biden is way past the first year of his presidency, why shouldn't he be served exactly the same medicine that his predecessor had been served in the past? 

 

By now we should all know how karma works, don't we? You get what you deserves ; You reap what you sow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2022 at 9:05 PM, singalion said:

 

It is obvious you intend to fabricate any story line just to thrash Biden by any means. 

 

During the canditade selection process and primaries it wasn't even clear that Biden would make it. The first primaries he nearly dropped out. 

 

I think you would invent anything to create a negative image on Biden (and probably any other Democratic president.. )

 

Trump didn't disclose during his 2020 campaign that he would instigate the storming of the Congress and deploy the National guard for photo shoots at churches during protests...

 

Now as Biden made public his policy on the police force you still prefer to throw more ( fabricated) smear on him? 

 

Obvious that you lost any objectivity to view things through neutral lenses. 

 

 

But good that you show the BW readers your agit-prop. Then they all know what to take from your post. 

 

 


It is obvious you just blindly attribute stuff that people did not say to declare people fabricate any story line to trash Biden. 
 

The defund police rhetoric only gained traction after George Floyd incident in May 2020. By May2020, Biden was already the Democrat candidate. He did not stop his radical left wing Democrats from calling for the defunding of police and Seattle and Minneapolis among other cities experienced a period of unending lawlessnesses. 
 

Even last year when he took office, many states across US experienced surge in crime and murder rates. At least with his Build Back Better plan dead in the water brilliantly stopped by Democrat Senators Manchin and Sinema, Biden now has more time to attempt to fix the mess his administration created in 2021. This is the least he can do to avoid losing in landslides in the mid-terms and 2024. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2022 at 2:50 AM, Guest Guest said:

 

His invasion is nothing more then just a distraction from all his failures, both overseas and domestically. If he's really so interested in taking down ISIS, he would not have withdrawn from Afghanistan in such a haste, to the extent that he even left BILLIONS worth of high tech weapons to the Afghanistanians, and even left hundreds of American citizens behind. This just goes to show his desperation to score brownie points for himself this time.

 

And even right now, there are UNICEF reports of 6 civilian children who died in the attacks. And they were not injured in the blast, but by gunshot wounds. Let's see how this pans out. 

 

A distraction from his failures?  Did Obama order the commando attack on Bin Laden's hiding place also "a distraction from his failures"?    We all humans have failures, you included.  Hopefully you can also do some good as "distraction from your failures".   How can you criticize an American president,  any president,  from making a priority out of taking down ISIS?

 

But I agree that the withdrawal from Afghanistan could have been done in a better way.  I disagree with Biden even if we don't know all the details of his decision.  To disagree is cheap! 

 

About the BILLIONS,  this is unfortunately the cost of modern weapons.  Didn't the F35 that plunged into the sea from an US aircraft carrier the other days also cost nearly a billion dollars?  Imagine how many hungry children could be fed with that money,  and how many children's lives could be saved with that money? 

 

The commando which did the attack on the ISIS compound yesterday took much precautions to avoid civilian casualties.   The big damage was done by the ISIS leader who blew himself up together with his family.  It seems that the Americans only killed the ISIS guy and his wife, who shot on them.  Americans then evacuated the compound of wounded children and handed them over to the Syrian medicals.   Can you imagine an attack by ISIS terrorists who would take care not to cause civilian casualties ???  This attack was clearly the forces of GOOD versus forces of EVIL.

.

Edited by Steve5380
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CovidUSA

Congratulations USA for achieving a new milestone!! It seems like the land of the free is also the land of people whose lives are very cheap where lives are lost easily to the virus, gun violence,  racial hate, internal divisions and high crime rates. You don't need to invade the country to conquer it, the country will self destroy itself in the long run.

 

Looking forward to the 1Million mark which will be achieved by the country soon. Well done! Give yourself a pat on the shoulder, "World Leader"... Wahahaha...

 

US Covid-19 deaths surpass 900,000, driven in part by Omicron surge

md_covidicu_05022022.jpg?VersionId=HuL3b An empty bed where a Covid-19 patient died at Hartford Hospital in Connecticut on Jan 18, 2022. PHOTO: AFP
Published
59 Mins Ago

 

WASHINGTON (REUTERS) - The coronavirus pandemic reached a grim new milestone in the United States on Friday (Feb 4) with the nation's cumulative death toll from Covid-19 surpassing 900,000, even as the daily number of lives lost has begun to level off, according to data collected by Reuters.

 

The latest tally marks an increase of more than 100,000 US Covid-19 fatalities since Dec 12, coinciding with a surge of infections and hospitalisations driven by the highly contagious Omicron variant of the virus.

 

Preliminary evidence has shown that Omicron, while far more infectious, generally causes less severe illness than earlier iterations of the virus, such as Delta.

 

But the sheer volume of Omicron cases fuelled a surge in hospitalisations that has strained many US healthcare systems to their limits in recent weeks.

 

Experts have said the bulk of Omicron patients requiring hospitalisation were unvaccinated individuals and people with other underlying chronic health conditions.

 

Data also suggests that Omicron may have hit the US harder than other countries with younger overall populations, such as in Africa.

 

As of Friday, according to Reuters' running tally of state-reported data, the total number of American lives lost to Covid-19 since the first US cases were detected in early 2020 has reached at least 904,067 

 

more than the entire population of South Dakota.

 

That tally is the highest number of Covid-19 deaths reported by any nation, followed by Russia, Brazil and India with more than 1.8 million deaths combined.

In terms of coronavirus fatalities per capita, the US ranks 20th, well below the top two - Peru and Russia.

 

Nevertheless, the US Covid-19 death rate appears to be slowing as the Omicron surge wanes, Reuters' figures show.

 

The seven-day average fell for two days in a row to 2,592, compared with a peak average of 2,674 in the current wave of infections.

 

By comparison, the peak during the Delta wave in January 2021 was an average of 3,300 deaths a day.

 

Some public health officials have said that as the Omicron outbreak recedes and hospitalisations decline, the pandemic may enter a new phase in the US and elsewhere.

 

In the state of Iowa, for example, the governor announced on Friday that a public health disaster proclamation, and special safety measures that go with it, would expire on Feb 15.

 

"The flu and other infectious illnesses are part of our everyday lives, and coronavirus can be managed similarly," Governor Kim Reynolds tweeted.

 

Nationally, confirmed Covid-19 cases are now averaging 354,000 a day, half of what was reported less than two weeks ago and down from the peak of nearly 806,000 infections a day on Jan 15.

 

Many infections, however, go uncounted because they are detected by home-testing kits and not reported to public health authorities, officials say.

 

Over the past seven days, the states reporting the most new cases per capita were Alaska, Kentucky, Washington state, South Carolina 

and North Dakota.

 

Current US Covid-19 hospitalisations stood at 117,000 compared with a peak of nearly 153,000 on Jan 20.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's get back to the basics:

 

 

 

February 4, 2022

 

Friday's job report showed the US economy added 6.6 million jobs during Biden's first 12 months in office, making it by far the best-ever first year for a president.

 

 

U.S. Jobs Surge Defies Omicron, Puts More Pressure on Fed

  • Employers added 467,000 jobs in January, above all estimates
  • Unemployment rate ticked up to 4% while hourly wages jumped
 
Bloomberg
By  Reade Pickert   February 4, 2022, 9:32 PM GMT+8Updated onFebruary 5, 2022, 12:32 AM GMT+8
 

The U.S. labor market showed unexpected strength last month despite record Covid-19 infections, extending momentum into the new year as surging wages added more pressure on the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates.

A broad-based 467,000 gain in nonfarm payrolls, which exceeded all economists’ projections, followed a 709,000 total upward revision to the prior two months, Labor Department figures showed Friday. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4%, and average hourly earnings jumped.

A variety of factors including omicron, seasonal adjustment and the way workers who are home sick are factored in make interpreting the January data challenging. But the increase in employment, along with substantial upward revisions to prior months, illustrate newfound momentum in the labor market. All the while, businesses are trying to retain as many workers as they can, including those hired for the holiday season.

The report suggests demand for labor remains robust and further reinforces Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s description last week of the labor market as “strong.” With workers hard to come by, seasonal layoffs in January were smaller than usual.

The figures also validate the central bank’s intention to raise interest rates in March to combat the highest inflation in nearly 40 years.

After adjustments to reflect updated population estimates, the labor force participation rate -- the share of the population that is working or looking for work -- increased to 62.2%, thanks to gains among both men and women. Without that impact, the rate held at 61.9%.

 

Meanwhile, average hourly earnings rose 0.7% in January, the most since the end of 2020, and 5.7% from a year ago, further fanning concerns about the persistence of inflation. The average workweek dropped.

The faster-than-expected advance in pay could fuel market concerns about the Fed taking an even more aggressive stance on inflation this year.

Despite the better-than-expected report, the impact of omicron on the labor market in January was substantial. There were 3.6 million employed Americans not at work due to illness, more than double that in December. Meanwhile, 6 million people were unable to work in the month because their employer closed or lost business due to the pandemic, roughly twice that in December.

The report also included revisions to total nonfarm employment as part of the department’s annual benchmark revision. For all of 2021, payrolls were revised up 217,000.

The jobs report is good news for the White House, which had been tempering expectations ahead of time out of concern that the omicron variant would negatively affect the data. The median estimate in a Bloomberg survey of economists called for a 125,000 advance.

The job gains were broad based, led by a 151,000 advance in leisure and hospitality. Transportation and warehousing, retail trade and professional and business services also posted solid increases.

The solid employment growth in several categories may reflect businesses choosing to retain more holiday workers than normal in the face of a tight labor market.

Looking at unemployment rates by demographics, most groups were relatively little changed from the prior month. Black Americans continue to have the highest jobless rate at 6.9%, double that of White workers. Participation among women age 25-54 was little changed, suggesting child care remains a limitation for working mothers. 

Friday’s report “is much more about what it tells us about those revisions, but what it tells us today: this is the labor market screaming,” Jeff Rosenberg, a senior portfolio manager at BlackRock Inc., said on Bloomberg Television.

 

 

 

 
Edited by singalion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

4 February 2022

US: Shock January jobs reports confounds the doubters

 

The Omicron wave has depressed economic activity and this was meant to translate into weak hiring. It hasn't. 467k jobs created and massive upward revisions suggests a fundamentally very strong economy. With companies desperate to hire and the biggest issue being the lack of suitable staff, wages are rising sharply and the Fed will respond

 

 

467,000

The number of jobs created in January

 

Jobs surge despite Omicron headwinds

Well, that was a turn up for the books! Non-farm payrolls rising 467k versus the 125k consensus with a net 709k upward revisions to the past couple of months. Completely out of line with belief that we could see a drop following the ADP, Manpower and Homebase surveys and the increase in initial jobless claims. The narrative was that the Omicron wave was depressing activity and hiring while the Census Bureau’s estimate that 8.8mn worker absences due to Covid would compound the risks to the downside.

 

It is what it is, but there will be scepticism – the BLS provide no explanation for why it is so strong. For example, the 151k increase in leisure and hospitality is hard to fathom given restaurant dining is down more than 20% on “normal” based on Opentable data. Only mining & logging (-4k) and motor vehicle and parts (-4k) saw falls. Instead, retail jumped 61k, transportation and warehousing was up 54k and professional business surveys increased by 86k.

 

The rest of the report is strong with labour participation rate rising three tenths of a percentage point to 62.2% (although still well down on the typical 63% figure reported pre-pandemic) and average hourly earnings rising 0.7% month-on-month to take the annual pay rate increase to 5.7% year-on-year. So strong activity, strong inflation pressures and this is when Omicron is holding back the economy!

 

More ammunition for the Fed hawks to push hard

Whether higher pay is enough to attract people back to the workforce only time will tell. Nonetheless, the narrative of intensifying labour market inflation pressures and strong employment growth when Omicron is supposedly depressing activity only makes it more likely that the Fed will embark on an aggressive series of interest rate increases. We are doubtful on the idea of a 50bp hike in March as a signal of intent to get inflation under control, given comments from officials, but fully expect five 25bp hikes this year, starting in March.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
On 2/5/2022 at 4:09 PM, singalion said:

 

 

 

4 February 2022

US: Shock January jobs reports confounds the doubters

 

The Omicron wave has depressed economic activity and this was meant to translate into weak hiring. It hasn't. 467k jobs created and massive upward revisions suggests a fundamentally very strong economy. With companies desperate to hire and the biggest issue being the lack of suitable staff, wages are rising sharply and the Fed will respond

 

 

467,000

The number of jobs created in January

 

Jobs surge despite Omicron headwinds

Well, that was a turn up for the books! Non-farm payrolls rising 467k versus the 125k consensus with a net 709k upward revisions to the past couple of months. Completely out of line with belief that we could see a drop following the ADP, Manpower and Homebase surveys and the increase in initial jobless claims. The narrative was that the Omicron wave was depressing activity and hiring while the Census Bureau’s estimate that 8.8mn worker absences due to Covid would compound the risks to the downside.

 

It is what it is, but there will be scepticism – the BLS provide no explanation for why it is so strong. For example, the 151k increase in leisure and hospitality is hard to fathom given restaurant dining is down more than 20% on “normal” based on Opentable data. Only mining & logging (-4k) and motor vehicle and parts (-4k) saw falls. Instead, retail jumped 61k, transportation and warehousing was up 54k and professional business surveys increased by 86k.

 

The rest of the report is strong with labour participation rate rising three tenths of a percentage point to 62.2% (although still well down on the typical 63% figure reported pre-pandemic) and average hourly earnings rising 0.7% month-on-month to take the annual pay rate increase to 5.7% year-on-year. So strong activity, strong inflation pressures and this is when Omicron is holding back the economy!

 

More ammunition for the Fed hawks to push hard

Whether higher pay is enough to attract people back to the workforce only time will tell. Nonetheless, the narrative of intensifying labour market inflation pressures and strong employment growth when Omicron is supposedly depressing activity only makes it more likely that the Fed will embark on an aggressive series of interest rate increases. We are doubtful on the idea of a 50bp hike in March as a signal of intent to get inflation under control, given comments from officials, but fully expect five 25bp hikes this year, starting in March.

 

 

Yeah ... let's get back to the basics: https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/us-wages-grew-fastest-pace-decades-2021-prices-grew-even-more 

 

US wages grew at fastest pace in decades in 2021, but prices grew even more

Jason Furman (PIIE) and Wilson Powell III (Harvard Kennedy School)

January 28, 2022 10:45 AM

 

Figure 4 Real employment cost index: wages, salaries, and total compensation for all civilian workers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Those with a little knowledge on macroeconomics will know, rising inflation causes rising wages... in the long term.

 

 

Inflation can cause unintended redistributions for wage earners, too. Wages do typically creep up with inflation over time—eventually. However, increases in wages may lag behind inflation for a year or two since wage adjustments are often somewhat sticky and occur only once or twice a year.

 

 

It is not my job here to teach those who don't bring the macroeconomic knowledge...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2022 at 5:44 PM, Guest Guest said:

 

Yeah ... let's get back to the basics: https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/us-wages-grew-fastest-pace-decades-2021-prices-grew-even-more 

 

US wages grew at fastest pace in decades in 2021, but prices grew even more

Jason Furman (PIIE) and Wilson Powell III (Harvard Kennedy School)

January 28, 2022 10:45 AM

 

Figure 4 Real employment cost index: wages, salaries, and total compensation for all civilian workers


That’s a pity that any increase in wages are more than wiped out by surge in prices. It takes basic common sense to realise that if your wages increase slower than prices of every day items, you have lesser to save for rainy days. Such is the situation people in US have to deal with now under Biden’s administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

A look at Trump's economic legacy

Examining the outgoing president's policies from tax cuts to trade wars.

 
 
20 January 2021

Tax Cut and Jobs Act, deregulation and national debt

Even before the virus further exacerbated U.S. income inequality, some experts say Trump’s economic policies favored the wealthy -- and left the poor and middle class behind.

 

His Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in December 2017 provided major tax breaks to corporations and wealthy individuals. The policy, among other things, reduced the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%.

 

Frankel called the policy "beyond ironic" for a president "who campaigned in 2016 on being the champion of the working man or working person and campaigned on 'draining the swamp' in Washington."

 

Shierholz said this policy "absolutely increased inequality" and the "vast majority of the benefits of those tax cuts went to the already very wealthy."

 

The economists also noted that the policy came at a time when unemployment was relatively low and the economy in good shape.

 

"That's not the time to be giving away trillions of dollars to the wealthy," Frankel said. "When you have a bad shock like the global financial crisis of 2008-09 or like the coronavirus crisis that we're still going through -- that's the time to increase government spending and expansionary fiscal policy, but you lose the ability to do that if you gave it away."

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

How have Trump’s trade wars affected Rust Belt jobs?

Sandra Polaski and David Dollar Monday, October 19, 2020

 

 

President Trump’s critiques of U.S. trade policy are well known. He lambasts “bad deals” that favor America’s trading partners and since taking office has attempted to use tariffs and new trade agreements to reduce the trade deficit and bring back manufacturing jobs. So, how have his policies affected American workers? What impact did President Trump’s tariffs have on important swing states like Ohio and Michigan? To answer these questions, David Dollar is joined by Sandra Polaski, a senior research scholar at Boston University’s Global Development Policy Center.

 

DOLLAR: Hi, I’m David Dollar, host of the Brookings trade podcast Dollar & Sense. Today my guest is Sandra Polaski, a senior research scholar at the Global Development Policy Center at Boston University. She’s one of the lead authors of a new study “How trade policy failed U.S. workers— and how to fix it.” It’s a very relevant topic as we head into our election. So welcome to the show, Sandra.

 

 

 

POLASKI: Hello, David. Glad to be here. Glad to join you.

 

DOLLAR: So let’s start with the big picture. President Trump had specific criticisms of the results of U.S. trade policy, and he’s used tariffs and new trade agreements to try to reduce the trade deficit and bring back manufacturing jobs. What do you think is the overall scorecard for this approach?

 

POLASKI: Well, let’s start with the trade deficit, David, because that’s actually President Trump’s preferred scorecard. He likes to refer to that as what will judge whether he’s been successful. And on that scorecard, on the trade deficit, it’s a fail. I give him a fail on that. The overall trade deficit, including both goods and services, has gotten worse every year of Trump’s presidency than it was when he took over from Obama. The deficit in goods alone— think manufactured goods, think inputs, intermediate goods— all of those things that you can touch and handle, the things that would bring jobs back, has actually been the worst in the last couple of years that it has ever been in U.S. history. So that’s a good first indication of how Trump scores on his trade approach. By the way, this year the trade deficit is on track to again set a record as the worst ever in U.S. history.

 

Turning to manufacturing jobs; you asked about manufacturing jobs. Well, Trump, as most people know, inherited a very long recovery after the 2008 financial crisis and the recession of 2009. There was a big stimulus package, there was an auto industry bailout, and the U.S. economy began to recover in general and the manufacturing industry began to recover. So over the years of the Obama administration there was a gradual recovery in manufacturing jobs and hours worked. Trump managed to destroy that through his ill-advised tariff tantrums in a short two years and put manufacturing into a recession. He was like a child taking a toy, a nice toy that somebody had, playing rough with it and breaking it. And this was even before the economy went into a tailspin due to his mishandling of the coronavirus. So, again, on manufacturing jobs, he gets a fail.

 

 

DOLLAR: I think some of these results are counterintuitive for people who are not professional economists studying these issues. It seems that if you put on a tariff and you restrict imports, everything else being equal you would think the trade deficit would go down. But, obviously, there are powerful indirect effects. Could we go into a little more detail about what are the indirect effects that undo what would seem to be kind of an obvious result but turns out not to be true?

 

POLASKI: Sure. Let’s take the example of Trump’s steel tariffs. So he put a 25 percent tariff— that’s big, that’s like having a new tax put on something you buy of 25 percent. He put it on imported steel from Canada, Europe, Mexico, India, China, everybody in 2018. This meant that industries that use steel— metal-using industries like autos and trucks, appliances like washing machines, construction— all had to pay 25 percent more for their inputs. So they raised their prices and they lost market share in the global market to competitors from other countries who didn’t have to pay this 25 percent tax. That’s a very, very big differential, 25 percent. So, businesses lost market share, other businesses downstream like auto, and they laid off workers. But that’s just the beginning of this story.

Our trade partners don’t like it when we impose tariffs arbitrarily on them. And frankly, they don’t take it sitting down. They don’t have to. So what did they do? They imposed equivalent tit-for-tat tariffs on U.S. goods, including U.S. steel and aluminum. Now, you can kind of see where this story is going. [They also imposed tariffs] on autos, airplanes, soybeans, corn, and lots of other agricultural imports that they had been buying from the U.S. That meant that the very industry, steel, that was supposed to be the beneficiary, lost export markets. And many other industries suffered the collateral damage from the retaliatory tariffs. So, after a very brief increase, the steel industry itself started to shed jobs even before the economic downturn caused by the pandemic. Today, it employs almost 2,000 fewer workers than it did when Trump took office.

 

 

Now, there have been various studies that tried to estimate the overall effect of the tariffs. They have all found a net job loss in the U.S. as a result of Trump’s tariffs, and the numbers are big. They range from 175,000 in one credible study to 300,000 in another credible study jobs destroyed by Trump’s tariffs and the retaliation that they inevitably drew.

 

DOLLAR: I agree with you, Sandra. Those are the two main effects. And I’ve also looked at those studies about the overall effect. The one I looked at had, I think, about 170,000 fewer manufacturing jobs because of the effects that you describe, but overall about 300,000 fewer jobs. I would just add that one other effect is that these tariffs actually make us poorer, and therefore people spend a little bit less. Not dramatically, but they spend a little bit less on lots of other things. We actually had job losses across a whole range of service sectors that you might think are not connected to international trade. That’s an example of the kind of indirect effects we’re talking about.

 

Sandra, one thing I liked about your study was the detail on some specific states, Michigan and Ohio in particular. These are key in the old industrial heartland of the United States and also important battleground states in the election. So, can we take each of those states in turn, perhaps starting with Michigan, and talk a little bit about the detail of what’s happened in Michigan manufacturing as a result of these trade wars and other policies in the last few years?

 

POLASKI: Well, our study found that Trump took what was a gradual recovery of Michigan manufacturing employment. As I said, there had been this long recovery from the 2008 crisis. And in Michigan in particular, because of the auto industry bailout that was part of the Obama-Biden administration, manufacturing employment was recovering when he took office from Obama. Again, he caused it to stall out. Today, there are 55,000 fewer manufacturing jobs in Michigan than there were the day he took office. This was partly the result of the tariff wars that we’ve been discussing which led to job losses in steel and especially in the auto industry which is both a heavy user of steel but also a very big employer in Michigan. And it affected all of their downstream industries as they started to lose market share.

It also reflects, David, a broader point, which is that with Trump’s tariff tantrums and a lot of his other very erratic economic actions and economic tweets, economic threats, he introduced a lot of uncertainty into the global economy and into the U.S. economies. That has led to lower investment. I mean, it’s very evident in all the charts that investment in the U.S. has been less than it was under the Obama administration. For example, in Michigan, the auto firms’ investment declined by 29 percent over the three full years of Trump’s presidency compared to the last three years of Obama’s presidency. Well, when you look at all of these factors together, it affected overall job growth in Michigan, not only in manufacturing, which began to slow in 2017 and 2018. Job creation in Michigan plunged in 2019. Now, it has basically collapsed. It’s down 360,000 from when Trump took office.

 

DOLLAR: And what about Ohio? You’ve got a lot of nice detail about both employment but also wages in manufacturing and in the broader Ohio economy.

 

POLASKI: The story on employment is very similar in Ohio as it was to Michigan. There are 26,000 fewer manufacturing jobs today than when Trump took office. Ohio was hit very hard by Trump’s tariffs and the retaliation in particular that they provoked. An Ohio State study, for example, found that there are 36 jobs in Ohio’s metal using industries for every job in steel and aluminum industries, and that the state’s manufacturers who were hurt by the tariffs outnumbered the winners by nine to one. So, you can imagine how that ripples through the economy.

Manufacturing wages declined under Trump, and the steepest declines were in fabricated metal products where workers lost about five percent of their paycheck with wages declining. Now, that was not only Trump’s trade policy. It was the fact that he has appointed people to the Labor Department, to the National Labor Relations Board, to all of these agencies that have some impact on workers whether it’s through minimum wages or through enforcing overtime rules or through collective bargaining rights. And in all of those areas, he was pushing down on the wages and the rights of workers. So, it combined with his trade policies to mean that manufacturing workers in Michigan are earning less today per hour than they were earning when he took office.

 

And then Ohio soybean farmers were hit hard. They watched their market share in China, which is their largest export economy, they watched it shrivel— if I can use the image of soybeans shriveling. And the rest of the Ohio economy, which depends on those incomes of farmers and manufacturing workers to go and spend in the stores, they all took a hit from it. Last year in 2019, even before the pandemic, Ohio experienced a net job loss across the entire state.

 

DOLLAR: Most of the results we are talking about are from data before the coronavirus hit— the pandemic and the recession— so most of that is really just focused on the trade war. I do find it quite striking, looking more recently, that our stock market is up over the past year whereas the total wage bill is down quite dramatically. So there really seems to be this dramatic separation in how capital and labor are experiencing this recession and recovery.

 

POLASKI: It’s really hard to explain. For me, the best way to think about this entire disconnect, broader than ever before really between Wall Street and Main Street, really has to do with the fact that the Federal Reserve has had to pump money into the economy to try to keep it going in the course of the pandemic-induced recession. And all that money that’s being pumped out there, a lot of it is being sucked up by Wall Street, sucked up by financial firms, and that money is looking for a place to invest. So, it’s investing. Whatever the argument today is about this biologic company or that tech company— well, maybe they will make out well because of the coronavirus— the money’s going there. Not because of any greater value that those companies are producing, not because they really are worth that, but because there’s all this money coursing through the economy because of the Fed policy, the monetary policy.

 

DOLLAR: One of the themes we’ve developed in earlier shows, Sandra, is that it would be difficult to deal with the manufacturing issues. We have legitimate issues about decline in employment, wages, certain locations in the U.S. really lagging behind. It would be difficult to use trade policy alone to correct that. So I’d like to broaden the agenda a little and talk about what kind of policies would make up a positive agenda. Perhaps we could start with tax policy and thinking about what is it that really could help some restoration of manufacturing and in particular communities.

 

POLASKI: Good point. And I think I’ve already referred to the idea that part of the harsh effect of Trump’s policies on manufacturing workers in Michigan and Ohio was not just his trade policy and his tariffs tantrums, it was his labor policy and his appointments to responsible positions who have, in fact, been foxes guarding the chicken coop for example at the Department of Labor. But you’re absolutely right. You have to look across the suite of all of the important policy levers that the government can pull in order to try to get results.

 

So many people think that the only achievement of Trump’s administration— achievement in the sense of having produced anything of any import— was the 2017 tax reform, the tax cuts of 2017. And the idea was that these tax cuts, which went overwhelmingly to corporations and to billionaires, only a very small proportion of it went to average people, certainly a very small proportion went to workers, but these tax cuts for the corporations and the billionaires were supposed to spur investment. The idea was they are paying less to the government so they will invest it in new factories and jobs and technology services and so on. But, as we already mentioned in Michigan, more broadly the investment didn’t come. The corporate tax cuts went into share buybacks, dividends to shareholders, executive pay increases, fabulous executive pay increases in some cases, and not into factories and equipment and service businesses or things that would help Main Street and that would help the average American. So it was very lopsided and unfair, but it gets worse.

 

The 2017 tax cut actually introduced several new incentives for corporations to send jobs offshore. To send jobs overseas. For example, the offshore profits of U.S. corporations are not taxed until they exceed 10 percent of the corporation’s tangible assets overseas. Tangible assets: what’s that? Buildings, factories, equipment, it’s all the things to produce overseas in many cases what they had previously been producing in the U.S. So, by sending more machinery and more factories overseas, the corporation can actually avoid taxes because if they have a bigger base of their tangible investments their profits are more likely to fall below 10 percent of that. And that means they pay zero in taxes. But even if their profits are more than 10 percent of these burgeoning assets that they have overseas, they still pay a tax rate on overseas profits of only half of what their domestic counterparts pay. So the tax rate on overseas profits above 10 percent is 10.5 percent whereas their domestic counterparts pay 21 percent. It actually makes domestic producers who don’t offshore the jobs look like suckers by comparison. And it gets still worse.

 

The net effect of these tax cuts— which, as I say, went overwhelmingly to billionaires and to corporations— according to the Congressional Budget Office is going to produce a deficit for the U.S. government of income it otherwise would have received if not for those cuts of 1.9 trillion dollars over the next decade. Now, that’s money that we desperately need to try to dig out of the hole of this pandemic-induced recession. We desperately need that money for so many things. To rebuild the U.S. economy, to invest in infrastructure, to create jobs at home. So as part of a suite of policies that can take on the problems that we already had, that were already building before Trump and that got so much worse under Trump, the 2017 tax reform needs to be repealed and completely redone in order to restore fairness to the tax system and to eliminate these perverse incentives.

 

DOLLAR: One of the really striking statistics in your study is that despite the trade war and a lot of tension and talk of decoupling between China and the U.S., the U.S. foreign investment in China has actually increased in the last few years. So these tax incentives you’re talking about are really quite powerful in attracting U.S. investment. I don’t have any problem with U.S. investment in China, but I don’t see any reason why we’re subsidizing it through the tax code in the way that you have just described.

 

 

DOLLAR: I think that’s a good note to end on. I’m David Dollar and I’ve been talking to Sandra Polaski about her new study, “How Trade Policy Failed U.S. Workers— and How to Fix It.” I encourage you to look at the study, and thank you very much for joining us, Sandra.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden approval rating drops to a new low of 41%, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds

 

2 minute read

image.jpeg.dc530979f6acbcc8272187e5c0bf6e91.jpeg

U.S. President Joe Biden visits New York public school P.S. 111 Jacob Blackwell to discuss community violence intervention programs with local leaders in Queens, New York City, New York, U.S., February 3, 2022. REUTERS/Leah Millis

 

WASHINGTON, Feb 3 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden's public approval rating fell to the lowest level of his presidency this week, a danger sign for his Democratic Party which risks losing control of Congress in the Nov. 8 elections, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll.

 

The national poll, conducted Feb. 2-3, found that 41% of U.S. adults approved of Biden's performance in office, while 56% disapproved and the rest were not sure. The prior week's poll had put Biden at a 45% approval rating and 50% disapproval.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-approval-rating-drops-new-low-41-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2022-02-03/

 

Edited by 7heaven
dismal approval
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
On 2/5/2022 at 7:01 PM, singalion said:

 

 

A look at Trump's economic legacy

Examining the outgoing president's policies from tax cuts to trade wars.

 
 
20 January 2021

Tax Cut and Jobs Act, deregulation and national debt

Even before the virus further exacerbated U.S. income inequality, some experts say Trump’s economic policies favored the wealthy -- and left the poor and middle class behind.

 

His Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in December 2017 provided major tax breaks to corporations and wealthy individuals. The policy, among other things, reduced the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%.

 

Frankel called the policy "beyond ironic" for a president "who campaigned in 2016 on being the champion of the working man or working person and campaigned on 'draining the swamp' in Washington."

 

Shierholz said this policy "absolutely increased inequality" and the "vast majority of the benefits of those tax cuts went to the already very wealthy."

 

The economists also noted that the policy came at a time when unemployment was relatively low and the economy in good shape.

 

"That's not the time to be giving away trillions of dollars to the wealthy," Frankel said. "When you have a bad shock like the global financial crisis of 2008-09 or like the coronavirus crisis that we're still going through -- that's the time to increase government spending and expansionary fiscal policy, but you lose the ability to do that if you gave it away."

 

 

 

 

On 2/5/2022 at 7:20 PM, singalion said:

 

 

 

How have Trump’s trade wars affected Rust Belt jobs?

Sandra Polaski and David Dollar Monday, October 19, 2020

 

 

President Trump’s critiques of U.S. trade policy are well known. He lambasts “bad deals” that favor America’s trading partners and since taking office has attempted to use tariffs and new trade agreements to reduce the trade deficit and bring back manufacturing jobs. So, how have his policies affected American workers? What impact did President Trump’s tariffs have on important swing states like Ohio and Michigan? To answer these questions, David Dollar is joined by Sandra Polaski, a senior research scholar at Boston University’s Global Development Policy Center.

 

DOLLAR: Hi, I’m David Dollar, host of the Brookings trade podcast Dollar & Sense. Today my guest is Sandra Polaski, a senior research scholar at the Global Development Policy Center at Boston University. She’s one of the lead authors of a new study “How trade policy failed U.S. workers— and how to fix it.” It’s a very relevant topic as we head into our election. So welcome to the show, Sandra.

 

 

 

POLASKI: Hello, David. Glad to be here. Glad to join you.

 

DOLLAR: So let’s start with the big picture. President Trump had specific criticisms of the results of U.S. trade policy, and he’s used tariffs and new trade agreements to try to reduce the trade deficit and bring back manufacturing jobs. What do you think is the overall scorecard for this approach?

 

POLASKI: Well, let’s start with the trade deficit, David, because that’s actually President Trump’s preferred scorecard. He likes to refer to that as what will judge whether he’s been successful. And on that scorecard, on the trade deficit, it’s a fail. I give him a fail on that. The overall trade deficit, including both goods and services, has gotten worse every year of Trump’s presidency than it was when he took over from Obama. The deficit in goods alone— think manufactured goods, think inputs, intermediate goods— all of those things that you can touch and handle, the things that would bring jobs back, has actually been the worst in the last couple of years that it has ever been in U.S. history. So that’s a good first indication of how Trump scores on his trade approach. By the way, this year the trade deficit is on track to again set a record as the worst ever in U.S. history.

 

Turning to manufacturing jobs; you asked about manufacturing jobs. Well, Trump, as most people know, inherited a very long recovery after the 2008 financial crisis and the recession of 2009. There was a big stimulus package, there was an auto industry bailout, and the U.S. economy began to recover in general and the manufacturing industry began to recover. So over the years of the Obama administration there was a gradual recovery in manufacturing jobs and hours worked. Trump managed to destroy that through his ill-advised tariff tantrums in a short two years and put manufacturing into a recession. He was like a child taking a toy, a nice toy that somebody had, playing rough with it and breaking it. And this was even before the economy went into a tailspin due to his mishandling of the coronavirus. So, again, on manufacturing jobs, he gets a fail.

 

 

DOLLAR: I think some of these results are counterintuitive for people who are not professional economists studying these issues. It seems that if you put on a tariff and you restrict imports, everything else being equal you would think the trade deficit would go down. But, obviously, there are powerful indirect effects. Could we go into a little more detail about what are the indirect effects that undo what would seem to be kind of an obvious result but turns out not to be true?

 

POLASKI: Sure. Let’s take the example of Trump’s steel tariffs. So he put a 25 percent tariff— that’s big, that’s like having a new tax put on something you buy of 25 percent. He put it on imported steel from Canada, Europe, Mexico, India, China, everybody in 2018. This meant that industries that use steel— metal-using industries like autos and trucks, appliances like washing machines, construction— all had to pay 25 percent more for their inputs. So they raised their prices and they lost market share in the global market to competitors from other countries who didn’t have to pay this 25 percent tax. That’s a very, very big differential, 25 percent. So, businesses lost market share, other businesses downstream like auto, and they laid off workers. But that’s just the beginning of this story.

Our trade partners don’t like it when we impose tariffs arbitrarily on them. And frankly, they don’t take it sitting down. They don’t have to. So what did they do? They imposed equivalent tit-for-tat tariffs on U.S. goods, including U.S. steel and aluminum. Now, you can kind of see where this story is going. [They also imposed tariffs] on autos, airplanes, soybeans, corn, and lots of other agricultural imports that they had been buying from the U.S. That meant that the very industry, steel, that was supposed to be the beneficiary, lost export markets. And many other industries suffered the collateral damage from the retaliatory tariffs. So, after a very brief increase, the steel industry itself started to shed jobs even before the economic downturn caused by the pandemic. Today, it employs almost 2,000 fewer workers than it did when Trump took office.

 

 

Now, there have been various studies that tried to estimate the overall effect of the tariffs. They have all found a net job loss in the U.S. as a result of Trump’s tariffs, and the numbers are big. They range from 175,000 in one credible study to 300,000 in another credible study jobs destroyed by Trump’s tariffs and the retaliation that they inevitably drew.

 

DOLLAR: I agree with you, Sandra. Those are the two main effects. And I’ve also looked at those studies about the overall effect. The one I looked at had, I think, about 170,000 fewer manufacturing jobs because of the effects that you describe, but overall about 300,000 fewer jobs. I would just add that one other effect is that these tariffs actually make us poorer, and therefore people spend a little bit less. Not dramatically, but they spend a little bit less on lots of other things. We actually had job losses across a whole range of service sectors that you might think are not connected to international trade. That’s an example of the kind of indirect effects we’re talking about.

 

Sandra, one thing I liked about your study was the detail on some specific states, Michigan and Ohio in particular. These are key in the old industrial heartland of the United States and also important battleground states in the election. So, can we take each of those states in turn, perhaps starting with Michigan, and talk a little bit about the detail of what’s happened in Michigan manufacturing as a result of these trade wars and other policies in the last few years?

 

POLASKI: Well, our study found that Trump took what was a gradual recovery of Michigan manufacturing employment. As I said, there had been this long recovery from the 2008 crisis. And in Michigan in particular, because of the auto industry bailout that was part of the Obama-Biden administration, manufacturing employment was recovering when he took office from Obama. Again, he caused it to stall out. Today, there are 55,000 fewer manufacturing jobs in Michigan than there were the day he took office. This was partly the result of the tariff wars that we’ve been discussing which led to job losses in steel and especially in the auto industry which is both a heavy user of steel but also a very big employer in Michigan. And it affected all of their downstream industries as they started to lose market share.

It also reflects, David, a broader point, which is that with Trump’s tariff tantrums and a lot of his other very erratic economic actions and economic tweets, economic threats, he introduced a lot of uncertainty into the global economy and into the U.S. economies. That has led to lower investment. I mean, it’s very evident in all the charts that investment in the U.S. has been less than it was under the Obama administration. For example, in Michigan, the auto firms’ investment declined by 29 percent over the three full years of Trump’s presidency compared to the last three years of Obama’s presidency. Well, when you look at all of these factors together, it affected overall job growth in Michigan, not only in manufacturing, which began to slow in 2017 and 2018. Job creation in Michigan plunged in 2019. Now, it has basically collapsed. It’s down 360,000 from when Trump took office.

 

DOLLAR: And what about Ohio? You’ve got a lot of nice detail about both employment but also wages in manufacturing and in the broader Ohio economy.

 

POLASKI: The story on employment is very similar in Ohio as it was to Michigan. There are 26,000 fewer manufacturing jobs today than when Trump took office. Ohio was hit very hard by Trump’s tariffs and the retaliation in particular that they provoked. An Ohio State study, for example, found that there are 36 jobs in Ohio’s metal using industries for every job in steel and aluminum industries, and that the state’s manufacturers who were hurt by the tariffs outnumbered the winners by nine to one. So, you can imagine how that ripples through the economy.

Manufacturing wages declined under Trump, and the steepest declines were in fabricated metal products where workers lost about five percent of their paycheck with wages declining. Now, that was not only Trump’s trade policy. It was the fact that he has appointed people to the Labor Department, to the National Labor Relations Board, to all of these agencies that have some impact on workers whether it’s through minimum wages or through enforcing overtime rules or through collective bargaining rights. And in all of those areas, he was pushing down on the wages and the rights of workers. So, it combined with his trade policies to mean that manufacturing workers in Michigan are earning less today per hour than they were earning when he took office.

 

And then Ohio soybean farmers were hit hard. They watched their market share in China, which is their largest export economy, they watched it shrivel— if I can use the image of soybeans shriveling. And the rest of the Ohio economy, which depends on those incomes of farmers and manufacturing workers to go and spend in the stores, they all took a hit from it. Last year in 2019, even before the pandemic, Ohio experienced a net job loss across the entire state.

 

DOLLAR: Most of the results we are talking about are from data before the coronavirus hit— the pandemic and the recession— so most of that is really just focused on the trade war. I do find it quite striking, looking more recently, that our stock market is up over the past year whereas the total wage bill is down quite dramatically. So there really seems to be this dramatic separation in how capital and labor are experiencing this recession and recovery.

 

POLASKI: It’s really hard to explain. For me, the best way to think about this entire disconnect, broader than ever before really between Wall Street and Main Street, really has to do with the fact that the Federal Reserve has had to pump money into the economy to try to keep it going in the course of the pandemic-induced recession. And all that money that’s being pumped out there, a lot of it is being sucked up by Wall Street, sucked up by financial firms, and that money is looking for a place to invest. So, it’s investing. Whatever the argument today is about this biologic company or that tech company— well, maybe they will make out well because of the coronavirus— the money’s going there. Not because of any greater value that those companies are producing, not because they really are worth that, but because there’s all this money coursing through the economy because of the Fed policy, the monetary policy.

 

DOLLAR: One of the themes we’ve developed in earlier shows, Sandra, is that it would be difficult to deal with the manufacturing issues. We have legitimate issues about decline in employment, wages, certain locations in the U.S. really lagging behind. It would be difficult to use trade policy alone to correct that. So I’d like to broaden the agenda a little and talk about what kind of policies would make up a positive agenda. Perhaps we could start with tax policy and thinking about what is it that really could help some restoration of manufacturing and in particular communities.

 

POLASKI: Good point. And I think I’ve already referred to the idea that part of the harsh effect of Trump’s policies on manufacturing workers in Michigan and Ohio was not just his trade policy and his tariffs tantrums, it was his labor policy and his appointments to responsible positions who have, in fact, been foxes guarding the chicken coop for example at the Department of Labor. But you’re absolutely right. You have to look across the suite of all of the important policy levers that the government can pull in order to try to get results.

 

So many people think that the only achievement of Trump’s administration— achievement in the sense of having produced anything of any import— was the 2017 tax reform, the tax cuts of 2017. And the idea was that these tax cuts, which went overwhelmingly to corporations and to billionaires, only a very small proportion of it went to average people, certainly a very small proportion went to workers, but these tax cuts for the corporations and the billionaires were supposed to spur investment. The idea was they are paying less to the government so they will invest it in new factories and jobs and technology services and so on. But, as we already mentioned in Michigan, more broadly the investment didn’t come. The corporate tax cuts went into share buybacks, dividends to shareholders, executive pay increases, fabulous executive pay increases in some cases, and not into factories and equipment and service businesses or things that would help Main Street and that would help the average American. So it was very lopsided and unfair, but it gets worse.

 

The 2017 tax cut actually introduced several new incentives for corporations to send jobs offshore. To send jobs overseas. For example, the offshore profits of U.S. corporations are not taxed until they exceed 10 percent of the corporation’s tangible assets overseas. Tangible assets: what’s that? Buildings, factories, equipment, it’s all the things to produce overseas in many cases what they had previously been producing in the U.S. So, by sending more machinery and more factories overseas, the corporation can actually avoid taxes because if they have a bigger base of their tangible investments their profits are more likely to fall below 10 percent of that. And that means they pay zero in taxes. But even if their profits are more than 10 percent of these burgeoning assets that they have overseas, they still pay a tax rate on overseas profits of only half of what their domestic counterparts pay. So the tax rate on overseas profits above 10 percent is 10.5 percent whereas their domestic counterparts pay 21 percent. It actually makes domestic producers who don’t offshore the jobs look like suckers by comparison. And it gets still worse.

 

The net effect of these tax cuts— which, as I say, went overwhelmingly to billionaires and to corporations— according to the Congressional Budget Office is going to produce a deficit for the U.S. government of income it otherwise would have received if not for those cuts of 1.9 trillion dollars over the next decade. Now, that’s money that we desperately need to try to dig out of the hole of this pandemic-induced recession. We desperately need that money for so many things. To rebuild the U.S. economy, to invest in infrastructure, to create jobs at home. So as part of a suite of policies that can take on the problems that we already had, that were already building before Trump and that got so much worse under Trump, the 2017 tax reform needs to be repealed and completely redone in order to restore fairness to the tax system and to eliminate these perverse incentives.

 

DOLLAR: One of the really striking statistics in your study is that despite the trade war and a lot of tension and talk of decoupling between China and the U.S., the U.S. foreign investment in China has actually increased in the last few years. So these tax incentives you’re talking about are really quite powerful in attracting U.S. investment. I don’t have any problem with U.S. investment in China, but I don’t see any reason why we’re subsidizing it through the tax code in the way that you have just described.

 

 

DOLLAR: I think that’s a good note to end on. I’m David Dollar and I’ve been talking to Sandra Polaski about her new study, “How Trade Policy Failed U.S. Workers— and How to Fix It.” I encourage you to look at the study, and thank you very much for joining us, Sandra.

 

 

Thank you so much for putting up articles from 1 to 2 years ago. Juxtaposed them to Biden's current record of the 40 year-high inflation and reduced real wages, it really goes to show that Trump did a much better job as the POTUS than what Biden have done, despite what anyone had said in the past! Lol! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...