As expected, U.S. economic growth slowed again as the year began, to 0.5 percent, down from 1.4 percent as 2015 ended.
This follows a worldwide trend, as noted here yesterday. However, there have been few comments on the economic slowdown from presidential candidates. Instead, most tirades have been vague promises and "trust me, I'll fix it" vows, coupled with personal insults aimed at political competitors.
This is not the way to build national confidence.
Meanwhile, the income gap widens.
The Commerce Department today said the value of goods and services produced in America during the first three months of this year declined to a growth rate just above zero, led by cuts in government spending, less investment by businesses, and reductions in inventory.
Separately, the Census Bureau reported a dip in the homeownership rate to 63.5 percent in the first quarter from a year ago. And the Labor Department said more people applied for jobless benefits last week, another indication that the economy is not improving as hoped.
Even so, the government said the total number of applications -- 247,000 -- marked 60 consecutive weeks when the the figure was below 300,000, the longest low streak since 1973. Meanwhile, the national unemployment rate ticked up in March to 5.0 percent, from 4.9 percent as total nonfarm employment rose by 215,000. The next report on the employment situation will be released May 6, and will cover April statistics.
Earlier, the Federal Reserve said it would hold its key interest rate to a range of 0.25 to 0.5 percent, as part of its effort to stimulate the economy.
Today's GDP report was the government's advance estimate of the growth rate. A second estimate will be released May 27.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Caution Flags
More signs of an economic lag are waving, as the U.S. Federal Reserve voted to hold its key interest rate near zero, despite repeated hints in recent months that it would boost it. The Fed's Open Market Committee said today that "growth in economic activity appears to have slowed."
In the U.S., economic growth faded to 1.4 percent in the fourth quarter, from 2.0 percent in the third quarter of last year. An advance estimate of U.S. first quarter performance is to be released Thursday morning.
The slowdown is true not only in the U.S. but worldwide as well. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) said "the global recovery continues to struggle to gain its footing," and growth in Latin America "is likely to contract for the second consecutive year in 2016."
In Britain, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew by just 0.4 percent in the first quarter, down from 0.6 percent in the final three months of 2015, according to government statistics. This comes amid fears that the UK will vote to leave the European Union.
In the U.S., economic growth faded to 1.4 percent in the fourth quarter, from 2.0 percent in the third quarter of last year. An advance estimate of U.S. first quarter performance is to be released Thursday morning.
The slowdown is true not only in the U.S. but worldwide as well. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) said "the global recovery continues to struggle to gain its footing," and growth in Latin America "is likely to contract for the second consecutive year in 2016."
In Britain, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew by just 0.4 percent in the first quarter, down from 0.6 percent in the final three months of 2015, according to government statistics. This comes amid fears that the UK will vote to leave the European Union.
Ignorant or Stupid
Knowledge is acquiring information.
Wisdom is knowing what to do with it.
Ignorant means not knowing. Stupid means you know better, but you do it anyway.
The root of "educate" is literally to "lead out" of ignorance. Many people have a diploma -- a piece of paper certifying that the holder spent time in an institution of learning -- yet they remain ignorant, in that they know little or nothing about many things.
Being aware of what you don't know is a good thing, because you can actively seek out and expand your knowledge. Acting on small knowledge or deliberately ignoring important information is stupid.
There is no sin in ignorance, in that there is no fault in not knowing or being unaware. But acting stupidly can be dangerous, and deliberately remaining ignorant, refusing to accept evidence and information that might be different from preconceived notions of what "should" be true is extreme stupidity.
Wisdom is knowing what to do with it.
Ignorant means not knowing. Stupid means you know better, but you do it anyway.
The root of "educate" is literally to "lead out" of ignorance. Many people have a diploma -- a piece of paper certifying that the holder spent time in an institution of learning -- yet they remain ignorant, in that they know little or nothing about many things.
Being aware of what you don't know is a good thing, because you can actively seek out and expand your knowledge. Acting on small knowledge or deliberately ignoring important information is stupid.
There is no sin in ignorance, in that there is no fault in not knowing or being unaware. But acting stupidly can be dangerous, and deliberately remaining ignorant, refusing to accept evidence and information that might be different from preconceived notions of what "should" be true is extreme stupidity.
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Language and Logic
Logic uses language, but language is not logical.
Language can provoke or persuade, convince or condemn, inform or deny. It matters not which language one chooses to use; the goal is to communicate, either for good or ill.
Pure logic is independent of words, but it needs words to communicate its message. Even math, which can be logically pure in its use of numbers, uses symbols to express its structure, and words are attached to these symbols, which are then translated according to the language preferred by the logicians.
Likewise, spelling is arbitrary. There is no abstract logic to the way certain symbols are used to represent certain sounds. The symbols may be called letters and the sounds called phonemes. Together, they are used to represent words.
And while the spelling of many words in the English language may appear to be consistent, pronunciation is not. It varies greatly according to regional and social dialects. Moreover, some letter combinations can represent a variety of sounds, regardless of dialect, even in what may be called standard, or prestige dialects. One example is the letter combination -ough. It appears as rough, cough, dough, through and other words.
In addition, "great," as in Great Britain, does not rhyme with treat, meat, cheat, cleat, or dread and bread.
Is there any logic to this variety in pronunciation? No. Are there reasons? Perhaps, deriving from regional and social dialects.
Does it matter? Only to those who want to communicate, and form relationships with their audiences.
There are standards of usage in language, both spoken and written. Which standard you select depends on how closely you want to identify with listeners and readers, and how well you want to communicate your message.
You may learn your first language from your parents or those who raise you, but you choose a dialect from your peers and those you admire and respect.
Language can provoke or persuade, convince or condemn, inform or deny. It matters not which language one chooses to use; the goal is to communicate, either for good or ill.
Pure logic is independent of words, but it needs words to communicate its message. Even math, which can be logically pure in its use of numbers, uses symbols to express its structure, and words are attached to these symbols, which are then translated according to the language preferred by the logicians.
Likewise, spelling is arbitrary. There is no abstract logic to the way certain symbols are used to represent certain sounds. The symbols may be called letters and the sounds called phonemes. Together, they are used to represent words.
And while the spelling of many words in the English language may appear to be consistent, pronunciation is not. It varies greatly according to regional and social dialects. Moreover, some letter combinations can represent a variety of sounds, regardless of dialect, even in what may be called standard, or prestige dialects. One example is the letter combination -ough. It appears as rough, cough, dough, through and other words.
In addition, "great," as in Great Britain, does not rhyme with treat, meat, cheat, cleat, or dread and bread.
Is there any logic to this variety in pronunciation? No. Are there reasons? Perhaps, deriving from regional and social dialects.
Does it matter? Only to those who want to communicate, and form relationships with their audiences.
There are standards of usage in language, both spoken and written. Which standard you select depends on how closely you want to identify with listeners and readers, and how well you want to communicate your message.
You may learn your first language from your parents or those who raise you, but you choose a dialect from your peers and those you admire and respect.
Friday, April 22, 2016
Who's in Charge Here?
Congress to Prez: You're Fired.
That's a tabloid headline that hasn't happened. Yet. But it could.
Candidates prattle on with grand pronouncements about what they will do when elected President, ignoring the reality that no President can do much without the consent of Congress.
Grant, a strong President with the backing of a majority of Congressional members of his own party can push through many programs, and there are some things a President can do by executive order, bypassing Congress.
This was particularly true of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, as he led efforts to rescue the country from the Great Depression. He also had the support of a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, at least for a time.
Recently, however, President Barack Obama has faced what has become known as the Party of No, as Republicans move to block anything and everything he proposes, and then blame him for America's problems.
During this election campaign, the candidates make many promises, as they generally do. But no chief executive can implement these promises without support in Congress, if only because they are the ones who control the purse strings. Without appropriated money, nothing happens. A President is called a chief executive for good reason; he (or she) is the one who executes plans and programs approved and budgeted by Congress.
In the private sector, or course, a chief executive can push through many policies on his own, especially if he controls a commanding share of a company's stock. Similarly, a President can propose and implement programs and policies if he or she can control a commanding share of Congressional representatives who must approve these programs and policies.
Also in the private sector, a president can fire subordinates who disagree with policies or proposals, or refuse to carry them out. In government, however, it doesn't work that way, since Congress is not subordinate to the presidency. Neither, for that matter, is the Supreme Court. The Constitution stipulates that the three branches of government are equal.
The President cannot fire any of the nine justices of the Supreme Court, since they are appointed for life. Nor can the President fire members of Congress, although he or she can encourage voters not to re-elect them.
On the contrary, Congress can fire the President, through the process of impeachment, conviction and removal from office if the President is found guilty of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
So far, only two Presidents -- Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton -- have been impeached, but neither was convicted or removed from office. Richard Nixon resigned before articles of impeachment, prepared by a House committee, were approved by the full House of Representatives. The Constitution states that the House can impeach a President, but trial and/or conviction takes place in the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding.
So while candidates prattle on at great length about what they will do when elected, without the support of Congress, those promises are stymied.
Therefore, it falls to the American electorate to choose wisely, naming not only a chief executive, but also members of the House and Senate who would support the President's proposals.
However, as has been wisely noted, be careful what you wish for, because you may get it.
That's a tabloid headline that hasn't happened. Yet. But it could.
Candidates prattle on with grand pronouncements about what they will do when elected President, ignoring the reality that no President can do much without the consent of Congress.
Grant, a strong President with the backing of a majority of Congressional members of his own party can push through many programs, and there are some things a President can do by executive order, bypassing Congress.
This was particularly true of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, as he led efforts to rescue the country from the Great Depression. He also had the support of a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, at least for a time.
Recently, however, President Barack Obama has faced what has become known as the Party of No, as Republicans move to block anything and everything he proposes, and then blame him for America's problems.
During this election campaign, the candidates make many promises, as they generally do. But no chief executive can implement these promises without support in Congress, if only because they are the ones who control the purse strings. Without appropriated money, nothing happens. A President is called a chief executive for good reason; he (or she) is the one who executes plans and programs approved and budgeted by Congress.
In the private sector, or course, a chief executive can push through many policies on his own, especially if he controls a commanding share of a company's stock. Similarly, a President can propose and implement programs and policies if he or she can control a commanding share of Congressional representatives who must approve these programs and policies.
Also in the private sector, a president can fire subordinates who disagree with policies or proposals, or refuse to carry them out. In government, however, it doesn't work that way, since Congress is not subordinate to the presidency. Neither, for that matter, is the Supreme Court. The Constitution stipulates that the three branches of government are equal.
The President cannot fire any of the nine justices of the Supreme Court, since they are appointed for life. Nor can the President fire members of Congress, although he or she can encourage voters not to re-elect them.
On the contrary, Congress can fire the President, through the process of impeachment, conviction and removal from office if the President is found guilty of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
So far, only two Presidents -- Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton -- have been impeached, but neither was convicted or removed from office. Richard Nixon resigned before articles of impeachment, prepared by a House committee, were approved by the full House of Representatives. The Constitution states that the House can impeach a President, but trial and/or conviction takes place in the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding.
So while candidates prattle on at great length about what they will do when elected, without the support of Congress, those promises are stymied.
Therefore, it falls to the American electorate to choose wisely, naming not only a chief executive, but also members of the House and Senate who would support the President's proposals.
However, as has been wisely noted, be careful what you wish for, because you may get it.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Rules Be Rules
Headline: Trump wins NY primary in a landslide.
Question: Does he still think the system is "rigged" and "corrupt," as he complained after losing last week?
Reminder: A political party is a private club, and each state sets its own rules, and these have been in place for months.
If you don't like the rules, don't play the game. Or, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. So far, he only complains when he loses. That makes him a sore loser, as noted here last week.
Meanwhile, in golf course news, Trump's representatives in Ireland want a "fast-track" application to build a wall on the beach to protect a golf course he bought two years ago but was since damaged by severe Atlantic storms.
Locals have objected, so he wants a "fast-track" national appeal after the proposed Atlantic wall was rejected. Authorities turned down that bid also, noting that the national infrastructure act that provided for a fast track, thus avoiding the local authority stage, was intended for "big projects that are important to the national interest."
"This is just a golf club," said one official.
Also, it seems one of Trump's four aircraft has been operating on an expired registration certificate for several months. The New York Times reported today that registration for the Cessna jet, used for smaller airports, expired but has still been in use since January.
A spokeswoman for the candidate claimed the renewal process was nearly complete, but the Federal Aviation Administration said it had not yet received a renewal application.
The renewal application fee is $5, and the registration is good for five years.
Question: Does he still think the system is "rigged" and "corrupt," as he complained after losing last week?
Reminder: A political party is a private club, and each state sets its own rules, and these have been in place for months.
If you don't like the rules, don't play the game. Or, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. So far, he only complains when he loses. That makes him a sore loser, as noted here last week.
Meanwhile, in golf course news, Trump's representatives in Ireland want a "fast-track" application to build a wall on the beach to protect a golf course he bought two years ago but was since damaged by severe Atlantic storms.
Locals have objected, so he wants a "fast-track" national appeal after the proposed Atlantic wall was rejected. Authorities turned down that bid also, noting that the national infrastructure act that provided for a fast track, thus avoiding the local authority stage, was intended for "big projects that are important to the national interest."
"This is just a golf club," said one official.
Also, it seems one of Trump's four aircraft has been operating on an expired registration certificate for several months. The New York Times reported today that registration for the Cessna jet, used for smaller airports, expired but has still been in use since January.
A spokeswoman for the candidate claimed the renewal process was nearly complete, but the Federal Aviation Administration said it had not yet received a renewal application.
The renewal application fee is $5, and the registration is good for five years.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Message Massage
Journalists have an obligation to report truthfully, not only what someone says and the context in which it is said, but also whether a statement is actually true.
Too often, journalists use fuzzy words to take any perceived sting off a description of a candidate, politician or office holder and his comments. Among these terms are such things as "demonstrably untrue, erroneous, factually inaccurate, questionable veracity" and other terms.
However, the stinging falsehoods and outright lies spread by some candidates are themselves hurtful and should be labeled what they are. Too often, the question is not whether politicians lie, but what are they lying about today?
Rational, intelligent people recognize the cruel tactics used by demagogues. It is long past time that major news media call these comments what they are -- lies, and equal to the tactics of demagogues throughout history who demonize minority groups to advance their own partisan agendas and play on the bigotry -- however subconscious -- of their followers.
This strategy, of course, belongs on the opinion pages of daily newspapers. Even so, there is space for appropriately labeled items on the main news pages, putting such phrases above the headline or in a box in the first column of the piece.
A reporter's duty is to ask questions, especially tough questions that the candidate may not want to deal with. Politicians often try to reverse the roles, and instead of answering the question will say to the reporter such things as "Did you see it yourself?" or "What do you think?" or "Who said that, and how do you know it's true?"
Rather than fall for the trick of reversing roles, a better response from the journalist would be, "My opinions don't matter, and they are not relevant. It's my job to ask questions on behalf of the general public and voters. It's your job to answer the questions."
This is especially true for anchors and interviewers on television news programs, which is where many people get most of their news and information. Otherwise, the program host becomes an accomplice to the candidate's attack mode.
Meanwhile, it remains the responsibility of readers and viewers to recognize which publications and broadcasts are themselves partisan, and which are not.
Too often, journalists use fuzzy words to take any perceived sting off a description of a candidate, politician or office holder and his comments. Among these terms are such things as "demonstrably untrue, erroneous, factually inaccurate, questionable veracity" and other terms.
However, the stinging falsehoods and outright lies spread by some candidates are themselves hurtful and should be labeled what they are. Too often, the question is not whether politicians lie, but what are they lying about today?
Rational, intelligent people recognize the cruel tactics used by demagogues. It is long past time that major news media call these comments what they are -- lies, and equal to the tactics of demagogues throughout history who demonize minority groups to advance their own partisan agendas and play on the bigotry -- however subconscious -- of their followers.
This strategy, of course, belongs on the opinion pages of daily newspapers. Even so, there is space for appropriately labeled items on the main news pages, putting such phrases above the headline or in a box in the first column of the piece.
A reporter's duty is to ask questions, especially tough questions that the candidate may not want to deal with. Politicians often try to reverse the roles, and instead of answering the question will say to the reporter such things as "Did you see it yourself?" or "What do you think?" or "Who said that, and how do you know it's true?"
Rather than fall for the trick of reversing roles, a better response from the journalist would be, "My opinions don't matter, and they are not relevant. It's my job to ask questions on behalf of the general public and voters. It's your job to answer the questions."
This is especially true for anchors and interviewers on television news programs, which is where many people get most of their news and information. Otherwise, the program host becomes an accomplice to the candidate's attack mode.
Meanwhile, it remains the responsibility of readers and viewers to recognize which publications and broadcasts are themselves partisan, and which are not.
Friday, April 15, 2016
Sore Loser
"I keep whining until I win." -- Donald J. Trump
"It's too late to complain" about the rules. -- GOP chairman Reince Priebus
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game." -- Grantland Rice.
The rules have been place for a year, and the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination admits he has not complained about his victories.
However, now that Donald Trump has lost several state contests, he insists that the rules must be wrong.
"The system is rigged," he claims. "It's corrupt."
Odd that he didn't raise such a stink when he won. But when he loses, he's sore.
In short, when he wins, it's a great system, and he crows about his victories for days. But when he loses, he pouts in silence for a time, then whines that the rules are wrong and the system is corrupt.
Moreover, given his lifelong history of bullying others to get his way, his current actions are no surprise.
Can you say "paranoid"?
"It's too late to complain" about the rules. -- GOP chairman Reince Priebus
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game." -- Grantland Rice.
The rules have been place for a year, and the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination admits he has not complained about his victories.
However, now that Donald Trump has lost several state contests, he insists that the rules must be wrong.
"The system is rigged," he claims. "It's corrupt."
Odd that he didn't raise such a stink when he won. But when he loses, he's sore.
In short, when he wins, it's a great system, and he crows about his victories for days. But when he loses, he pouts in silence for a time, then whines that the rules are wrong and the system is corrupt.
Moreover, given his lifelong history of bullying others to get his way, his current actions are no surprise.
Can you say "paranoid"?
Monday, April 11, 2016
Political Clubhouse
A political party is not a democracy. It is a private club, where members set their own rules, and these rules can change every year, especially every election year, so that the party leaders can maneuver their preferred choice to nomination for high office.
It has happened before, when GOP rule makers in 2012 modified party procedures to ensure the choice of Mitt Romney for the presidential nomination. It happened in 1968, when Democratic Party mavens pressured delegates into choosing Vice President Hubert Humphrey for the top slot, even though he had not won any primary contest. That was the year when Robert Kennedy was assassinated, and George McGovern had already won four primary contests.
This year, Donald Trump has begun complaining loudly that he leads in many examples of the popular vote, and therefore that should be the ruling factor, not the rules allocating delegates according to arcane formulas imposed by state party leaders.
But leading in the popular vote has never been a guarantee of winning the presidency, even in the general election held in November, much less the private club competitions held during caucuses or primary elections. In fact, Americans do not vote directly for a President at all. Rather, on Election Day, they vote for a group of delegates to what's called the Electoral College, who then meet later and choose a President.
However, those in the Electoral College are under no strict legal obligation to vote for any particular candidate, despite their earlier promise to do so. In the past, they have been allegations of electors being bought off.
The Constitution -- in place since 1789 -- stipulates that each state shall name electors, who then meet to make a final choice for President. Normally, these electors do in fact follow their instructions and vote for the candidate to whom they were committed.
However, winning the popular vote is no guarantee that a candidate will also win the electoral vote. There have been several instances where a candidate has attracted more votes from citizens, but fewer votes in the Electoral College.
In addition, there has been at least one instance where a candidate racked up both a popular plurality and its corresponding Electoral College delegates, and still lost the presidency.
That was in 1876, when Republican Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Democrat Samuel J. Tilden. The Democratic candidate had won the popular vote, as well as 184 uncontested electoral votes, compared to 165 for Hayes. A sure thing? Not really, since a winner needed 185 electoral votes, leaving Tilden one vote short of victory. And there were 20 more electoral votes to be allocated.
In the end, and after much maneuvering and political wheeling and dealing, Hayes was inaugurated.
For a more recent example, consider the election of 2000, when Republican George W. Bush was behind Democrat Al Gore in the popular vote, but still got to the White House by winning more electoral votes. Some say he was aided in this maneuvering by the Supreme Court, which stepped in to stop a recount in Florida, thereby giving Bush a lead in electoral votes, and the presidency.
All in all, it's a messy system, set in place at a time when framers of the Constitution did not fully trust ordinary voters, setting up an intermediary known as the Electoral College, perhaps intending to prevent a demagogue from racking up a tremendous lead in the popular vote and moving the country away from a proper democracy.
While it would seem there have been abuses of the Electoral College system -- only two would qualify as aberrations -- on the whole, it has worked reasonably well, as the allocation of delegates to the Electoral College from the various states helps to balance population preferences and keep out dictators.
So far.
It has happened before, when GOP rule makers in 2012 modified party procedures to ensure the choice of Mitt Romney for the presidential nomination. It happened in 1968, when Democratic Party mavens pressured delegates into choosing Vice President Hubert Humphrey for the top slot, even though he had not won any primary contest. That was the year when Robert Kennedy was assassinated, and George McGovern had already won four primary contests.
This year, Donald Trump has begun complaining loudly that he leads in many examples of the popular vote, and therefore that should be the ruling factor, not the rules allocating delegates according to arcane formulas imposed by state party leaders.
But leading in the popular vote has never been a guarantee of winning the presidency, even in the general election held in November, much less the private club competitions held during caucuses or primary elections. In fact, Americans do not vote directly for a President at all. Rather, on Election Day, they vote for a group of delegates to what's called the Electoral College, who then meet later and choose a President.
However, those in the Electoral College are under no strict legal obligation to vote for any particular candidate, despite their earlier promise to do so. In the past, they have been allegations of electors being bought off.
The Constitution -- in place since 1789 -- stipulates that each state shall name electors, who then meet to make a final choice for President. Normally, these electors do in fact follow their instructions and vote for the candidate to whom they were committed.
However, winning the popular vote is no guarantee that a candidate will also win the electoral vote. There have been several instances where a candidate has attracted more votes from citizens, but fewer votes in the Electoral College.
In addition, there has been at least one instance where a candidate racked up both a popular plurality and its corresponding Electoral College delegates, and still lost the presidency.
That was in 1876, when Republican Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Democrat Samuel J. Tilden. The Democratic candidate had won the popular vote, as well as 184 uncontested electoral votes, compared to 165 for Hayes. A sure thing? Not really, since a winner needed 185 electoral votes, leaving Tilden one vote short of victory. And there were 20 more electoral votes to be allocated.
In the end, and after much maneuvering and political wheeling and dealing, Hayes was inaugurated.
For a more recent example, consider the election of 2000, when Republican George W. Bush was behind Democrat Al Gore in the popular vote, but still got to the White House by winning more electoral votes. Some say he was aided in this maneuvering by the Supreme Court, which stepped in to stop a recount in Florida, thereby giving Bush a lead in electoral votes, and the presidency.
All in all, it's a messy system, set in place at a time when framers of the Constitution did not fully trust ordinary voters, setting up an intermediary known as the Electoral College, perhaps intending to prevent a demagogue from racking up a tremendous lead in the popular vote and moving the country away from a proper democracy.
While it would seem there have been abuses of the Electoral College system -- only two would qualify as aberrations -- on the whole, it has worked reasonably well, as the allocation of delegates to the Electoral College from the various states helps to balance population preferences and keep out dictators.
So far.
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
Reality Check
Republican candidates continue to yammer about the disastrous state of the American economy, as Sen. Ted Cruz evokes the spirit of economist Milton Friedman as his guiding light for recovery, along with less government and a "trickle-down" economic policy that will rescue a faltering recovery.
And among other things, in his Wisconsin victory speech, Cruz called for the Internal Revenue Service to be abolished. How the government would function without any source of revenue was not mentioned.
Donald Trump has gone even further, warning of a serious recession -- unless, of course, he is elected president, and then he can fix things. Presumably as he has fixed many of his own business ventures.
Both complain bitterly of the economic "disaster" that the nation has suffered during the Obama Administration.
Reality check: President Barack Obama took office with an unemployment rate of about 10 percent, a stumbling economy and continuing job losses. The numbers tell a different story. The economy is growing, hiring has increased, and the jobless rate is below 6 percent.
The latest report from the Federal Reserve backs this up, noting that "economic activity has been expanding at a moderate pace despite the global and financial developments of recent months." Further, the central bank said, "A range of recent indicators, including strong job gains, points to additional strengthening."
Against this backdrop, the Fed said, it will maintain its target range for its key interest rate at 1/4 to 1/2 percent, as part of its program to stimulate the economy.
Government plays a major role in any modern economy, along with consumer spending and corporate investment. And when consumers stop spending and corporations cut back on investments, government can step in to fill the gap, thus avoiding complete disaster. One of the most obvious ways, of course, is infrastructure spending, as government upgrades, replaces and adds such things as roads, highways, bridges and other projects that provide jobs and income for consumers.
But that's contrary to the ultra-conservative economic think-planners, who insist that a government that governs best is one that governs least. And for some, that means no government at all.
No IRS means no income to fund government projects, including the many jobs at key government agencies.
Trickle-down economics claims that cutting taxes for the wealthy means more disposable income for them, so their spending will provide jobs and income for others, and the benefits trickle down to the rest of us.
Assuming, of course, that the ultra-rich do, in fact, spend all that extra money that they would otherwise have paid in taxes. But what if they don't? History has a lesson there.
And among other things, in his Wisconsin victory speech, Cruz called for the Internal Revenue Service to be abolished. How the government would function without any source of revenue was not mentioned.
Donald Trump has gone even further, warning of a serious recession -- unless, of course, he is elected president, and then he can fix things. Presumably as he has fixed many of his own business ventures.
Both complain bitterly of the economic "disaster" that the nation has suffered during the Obama Administration.
Reality check: President Barack Obama took office with an unemployment rate of about 10 percent, a stumbling economy and continuing job losses. The numbers tell a different story. The economy is growing, hiring has increased, and the jobless rate is below 6 percent.
The latest report from the Federal Reserve backs this up, noting that "economic activity has been expanding at a moderate pace despite the global and financial developments of recent months." Further, the central bank said, "A range of recent indicators, including strong job gains, points to additional strengthening."
Against this backdrop, the Fed said, it will maintain its target range for its key interest rate at 1/4 to 1/2 percent, as part of its program to stimulate the economy.
Government plays a major role in any modern economy, along with consumer spending and corporate investment. And when consumers stop spending and corporations cut back on investments, government can step in to fill the gap, thus avoiding complete disaster. One of the most obvious ways, of course, is infrastructure spending, as government upgrades, replaces and adds such things as roads, highways, bridges and other projects that provide jobs and income for consumers.
But that's contrary to the ultra-conservative economic think-planners, who insist that a government that governs best is one that governs least. And for some, that means no government at all.
No IRS means no income to fund government projects, including the many jobs at key government agencies.
Trickle-down economics claims that cutting taxes for the wealthy means more disposable income for them, so their spending will provide jobs and income for others, and the benefits trickle down to the rest of us.
Assuming, of course, that the ultra-rich do, in fact, spend all that extra money that they would otherwise have paid in taxes. But what if they don't? History has a lesson there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)