You seriously think Obama was the first President to authorize military force without Congress?CID1990 wrote:Obama didn't go to war with Libya in circumvention of the War Powers Act?
That most certainly was an expansion of executive power not used before.
Go back and read, Mr. SemanticsSkjellyfetti wrote:You seriously think Obama was the first President to authorize military force without Congress?CID1990 wrote:Obama didn't go to war with Libya in circumvention of the War Powers Act?
That most certainly was an expansion of executive power not used before.
Jelly, you’re getting clobbered by CID. Quit while you’re behind.Skjellyfetti wrote:You seriously think Obama was the first President to authorize military force without Congress?CID1990 wrote:Obama didn't go to war with Libya in circumvention of the War Powers Act?
That most certainly was an expansion of executive power not used before.
George Jelly Custer doesn't choose his battlesIvytalk wrote:Jelly, you’re getting clobbered by CID. Quit while you’re behind.Skjellyfetti wrote:
You seriously think Obama was the first President to authorize military force without Congress?
Show me a libertarian or conk on this site who’s been a cheerleader for the tariffs? I personally blame the decision to go after China on tariffs for the decline in the market over the past 4 months. While I DO think something needed to be done about the unlevel playing field, and I DO believe that any “conversion” was going to be painful, Trump’s lack of decorum hasn’t helped the situation any.Skjellyfetti wrote:∞∞∞ wrote: Here's a secret: they were never libertarians.
I was talking about on this site. Cid, who was struggling to think of an example of Trump's overreach, in particular.Ivytalk wrote: I don’t know what you mean by “trended Libertarian.” There are only a few genuine libertarians in the House. Small-l, given the duopoly. Justin Amash and Thomas Massie, to name two. Both anti-tariff. Maybe Walter Jones.
In the Senate, Rand Paul has the right instincts on several libertarian issues, including tariffs and Constitutional warmaking.
I've been ambivalent on the tariff - really neither against or forAZGrizFan wrote:Show me a libertarian or conk on this site who’s been a cheerleader for the tariffs? I personally blame the decision to go after China on tariffs for the decline in the market over the past 4 months. While I DO think something needed to be done about the unlevel playing field, and I DO believe that any “conversion” was going to be painful, Trump’s lack of decorum hasn’t helped the situation any.Skjellyfetti wrote:
I was talking about on this site. Cid, who was struggling to think of an example of Trump's overreach, in particular.
CID1990 wrote:I've been ambivalent on the tariff - really neither against or forAZGrizFan wrote:
Show me a libertarian or conk on this site who’s been a cheerleader for the tariffs? I personally blame the decision to go after China on tariffs for the decline in the market over the past 4 months. While I DO think something needed to be done about the unlevel playing field, and I DO believe that any “conversion” was going to be painful, Trump’s lack of decorum hasn’t helped the situation any.
We have serious problems with China, and as Clitz has also said- we may at least settle once and for all whether or not it is too late for tariffs to affect China's behavior
AND that Trump is likely the only person who can actually try it
While tariffs were/are a factor, the biggest reason was Jerome Powell's inability to articulate his thoughts without scaring the market. You can go back and pinpoint the start of the drop on October 3rd to the hour of his "we're a long way from getting rates to neutral" comment. And he kept doubling down on that for nearly 2 months with terms like "autopilot" regarding the balance sheet unwinding. He is not a market guy and doesn't seem to understand the market's sensitivity to his every word (which is baffling because a person in that position should know that). Then Trump started feuding with the Fed on their appearance of being over-aggressive. Trump was right but, as usual, he went overboard and the market got further spooked with the uncertainty of his overreach possibilities. It wasn't until the day after Christmas, when Kevin Hassett's remarks that Powell was safe, that the market rebounded.AZGrizFan wrote: Show me a libertarian or conk on this site who’s been a cheerleader for the tariffs? I personally blame the decision to go after China on tariffs for the decline in the market over the past 4 months. While I DO think something needed to be done about the unlevel playing field, and I DO believe that any “conversion” was going to be painful, Trump’s lack of decorum hasn’t helped the situation any.
Well, true. The fed hasn’t helped, that’s for sure. The last rate increase was completely unnecessary.CAA Flagship wrote:While tariffs were/are a factor, the biggest reason was Jerome Powell's inability to articulate his thoughts without scaring the market. You can go back and pinpoint the start of the drop on October 3rd to the hour of his "we're a long way from getting rates to neutral" comment. And he kept doubling down on that for nearly 2 months with terms like "autopilot" regarding the balance sheet unwinding. He is not a market guy and doesn't seem to understand the market's sensitivity to his every word (which is baffling because a person in that position should know that). Then Trump started feuding with the Fed on their appearance of being over-aggressive. Trump was right but, as usual, he went overboard and the market got further spooked with the uncertainty of his overreach possibilities. It wasn't until the day after Christmas, when Kevin Hassett's remarks that Powell was safe, that the market rebounded.AZGrizFan wrote: Show me a libertarian or conk on this site who’s been a cheerleader for the tariffs? I personally blame the decision to go after China on tariffs for the decline in the market over the past 4 months. While I DO think something needed to be done about the unlevel playing field, and I DO believe that any “conversion” was going to be painful, Trump’s lack of decorum hasn’t helped the situation any.
October 3rd was also the beginning of a long slide in oil prices from $76 to $42. That put a lot of pressure on the market. Then there was the crazy action in the bond market. Brexit concerns added a little weight too, as well as the Mid-term elections. Apple showing weakness also contributed to the decline as the 7th biggest "weight' of the DJIA.
Yep. No career politician will touch it with a ten foot pole.CID1990 wrote:I've been ambivalent on the tariff - really neither against or forAZGrizFan wrote:
Show me a libertarian or conk on this site who’s been a cheerleader for the tariffs? I personally blame the decision to go after China on tariffs for the decline in the market over the past 4 months. While I DO think something needed to be done about the unlevel playing field, and I DO believe that any “conversion” was going to be painful, Trump’s lack of decorum hasn’t helped the situation any.
We have serious problems with China, and as Clitz has also said- we may at least settle once and for all whether or not it is too late for tariffs to affect China's behavior
AND that Trump is likely the only person who can actually try it
I can't say whether the last rate increase was unnecessary or not. But the posture of the Fed being hell bent on continuing to raise in the future regardless of what the data says was unsettling to the market. The Fed wants ammo to fight a recession. But the stockpiling of ammo, in itself, can cause a recession. It's a tricky balance for the Fed. But the wrong approach is to give the notion that the stockpiling of ammo will occur no matter what, which is where Powell failed until recently by stressing that further moves will be "data dependent".AZGrizFan wrote:Well, true. The fed hasn’t helped, that’s for sure. The last rate increase was completely unnecessary.CAA Flagship wrote: While tariffs were/are a factor, the biggest reason was Jerome Powell's inability to articulate his thoughts without scaring the market. You can go back and pinpoint the start of the drop on October 3rd to the hour of his "we're a long way from getting rates to neutral" comment. And he kept doubling down on that for nearly 2 months with terms like "autopilot" regarding the balance sheet unwinding. He is not a market guy and doesn't seem to understand the market's sensitivity to his every word (which is baffling because a person in that position should know that). Then Trump started feuding with the Fed on their appearance of being over-aggressive. Trump was right but, as usual, he went overboard and the market got further spooked with the uncertainty of his overreach possibilities. It wasn't until the day after Christmas, when Kevin Hassett's remarks that Powell was safe, that the market rebounded.
October 3rd was also the beginning of a long slide in oil prices from $76 to $42. That put a lot of pressure on the market. Then there was the crazy action in the bond market. Brexit concerns added a little weight too, as well as the Mid-term elections. Apple showing weakness also contributed to the decline as the 7th biggest "weight' of the DJIA.
Some of that is also Trump-related (and related to grown-ups not knowing how to deal with him). The Fed seemed to want to show it's independence from Trump and doing the opposite of what he was arguing for just for the sake of showing they weren't going to cowtow to Trump, even if raising the rate at that point in time wasn't really the best move for the Fed to take. The Fed's own TDS led them to make a decision they wouldn't have done otherwise.CAA Flagship wrote:I can't say whether the last rate increase was unnecessary or not. But the posture of the Fed being hell bent on continuing to raise in the future regardless of what the data says was unsettling to the market. The Fed wants ammo to fight a recession. But the stockpiling of ammo, in itself, can cause a recession. It's a tricky balance for the Fed. But the wrong approach is to give the notion that the stockpiling of ammo will occur no matter what, which is where Powell failed until recently by stressing that further moves will be "data dependent".AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, true. The fed hasn’t helped, that’s for sure. The last rate increase was completely unnecessary.
That's certainly possible. Again, whether rate raises are warranted or not is above my pay grade. But Powell misstepped with his words a number of times even before Trump started railing on the Fed. The market dislikes uncertainty, but in this case, the card to play is saying that everything depends on the data going forward. And it's OK to say "if.....then......", but saying, with a degree of certainty, that we will have 3 rate hikes in 2019 without any clause that would reduce that number is just dumb. That signaled a Fed policy-induced recession to the market.GannonFan wrote:Some of that is also Trump-related (and related to grown-ups not knowing how to deal with him). The Fed seemed to want to show it's independence from Trump and doing the opposite of what he was arguing for just for the sake of showing they weren't going to cowtow to Trump, even if raising the rate at that point in time wasn't really the best move for the Fed to take. The Fed's own TDS led them to make a decision they wouldn't have done otherwise.CAA Flagship wrote: I can't say whether the last rate increase was unnecessary or not. But the posture of the Fed being hell bent on continuing to raise in the future regardless of what the data says was unsettling to the market. The Fed wants ammo to fight a recession. But the stockpiling of ammo, in itself, can cause a recession. It's a tricky balance for the Fed. But the wrong approach is to give the notion that the stockpiling of ammo will occur no matter what, which is where Powell failed until recently by stressing that further moves will be "data dependent".
I'm not excusing Powell at all - he clearly shoulders the lionshare of the confusion the Fed has created over the past half year.CAA Flagship wrote:That's certainly possible. Again, whether rate raises are warranted or not is above my pay grade. But Powell misstepped with his words a number of times even before Trump started railing on the Fed. The market dislikes uncertainty, but in this case, the card to play is saying that everything depends on the data going forward. And it's OK to say "if.....then......", but saying, with a degree of certainty, that we will have 3 rate hikes in 2019 without any clause that would reduce that number is just dumb. That signaled a Fed policy-induced recession to the market.GannonFan wrote:
Some of that is also Trump-related (and related to grown-ups not knowing how to deal with him). The Fed seemed to want to show it's independence from Trump and doing the opposite of what he was arguing for just for the sake of showing they weren't going to cowtow to Trump, even if raising the rate at that point in time wasn't really the best move for the Fed to take. The Fed's own TDS led them to make a decision they wouldn't have done otherwise.