Wednesday, October 21, 2020

Stock market performance under Trump has been good in comparison with his predecessors, but best ever remains Eisenhower by far, followed by Truman


The post-war boom was almost inevitable and had little to do with the individual man and his policies. The income tax code's punitive elements at the time drove money into domestic investment, which received favorable tax treatment.

For America to be great like that again we must punish foreign investment and reward domestic. That's what creates jobs for Americans and expands markets for housing, autos and everything else here at home, with the result that companies make money and stocks do well.

But everyone in both parties, it seems, still want everything for themselves, investing abroad where labor is cheaper and regulation lax.

The only person in politics even remotely open to reversing the status quo remains Trump.

Monday, October 19, 2020

US COVID-19 deaths crossed the 220k mark this evening in the Johns Hopkins data

 


LOL, The Associated Press just redefined "suburban white woman" faster than "sexual preference" became offensive to Crazy Mazie Hirono

 Key descriptors from the LOL story, "Suburban women lead the charge vs. Trump", here:

yoga pants

sneakers

left her Lincoln Aviator idling [climate change for thee but not for me]

Lori Goldman

could not have described the branches of government

white

started her group Fems for Dems in early 2016 [Hillary partisan]

→the stereotype of a suburban woman [uh huh]

She’s hungry because she often doesn’t take the time to eat [see below]

Her knee aches from a replacement surgery six months ago [see below]

Often the houses have Trump flags hanging from the porch rails 

[oops, how'd that get in there?]

“But this is war,” she says, and she considers herself a street fighter

a $2 million house

fancy car

American Express black card that she always loses because she keeps it in her bra

"mansplaining...it’s happened since Adam and Eve"

Sometimes she stands up in the middle of Starbucks and bellows [I'll bet she does].






Sunday, October 11, 2020

US COVID-19 update for 10/11/20

Deaths per day in the first ten days of October have slowed to 733. Extrapolated through the end of the year from Sep 30 that would result in ~272,822 total deaths by 12/31/20:

Mar    138

Apr  1,961

May 1,330

Jun     769

Jul      851

Aug    955

Sep    779

Oct     733 (thru 10/10).

The compound daily growth rate for deaths has ticked down for two months, but for a hiccup just before the official end of summer, to a new low level which may, however, be bottoming (click on images to expand):


Hospitalizations for COVID-19 hit a low at the official end of summer, but are on the rise again to levels comparable to the end of June when this data started to be reported. Keep in mind, however, that Florida did not begin reporting current hospitalizations until 7/11, when it had almost 7k, so the June data in this chart for 47 states is probably underreported by close to that, meaning current levels, though rising from recent lows, remain below June:


This snapshot shows current hospitalizations in Texas (pink), California (blue), and Florida (green) relative to New York (gray). Texas is concerning because it looks like it bottomed and is on the rise again:




 



California, which may be considered a proxy for the whole nation, continues to report high infection numbers among the young but low deaths. 71% of cases have been aged 0-49, but only 7% of deaths are 0-49. The troubling middle: 19% of cases to date there are 50-64, but also 19% of deaths are that age.

The civilian noninstitutional population 50 or older in the United States in Sep 2020 numbers 117.4 million. Those aged 16-49 number 143.3 million.

This has become a protracted conflict and looks to remain so, pitting those who experience only 7% of the deaths against those who experience 93%. The war seems to express itself mostly over Addition (of the facemask), as opposed to Prohibition (of alcohol) from a century ago.

Saturday, October 10, 2020

Just because Congress in 1869 stipulated a Supreme Court of nine doesn't mean Trump must appoint anyone

 Trump would be a fool not to make a Supreme Court appointment, of course, and he has done it, but the executive branch is co-equal and doesn't have an obligation to comply with the act of Congress from 150 years ago by appointing a replacement for RBG to make it nine if it doesn't want to make an appointment for prudential or even political reasons.

The executive can say the court costs too much and for that reason not make the appointment. The executive can say the court hears too few cases to require a ninth justice. The executive can say "eight is enough". Marbury v Madison, perhaps the most consequential decision ever, was decided by a Supreme Court 4-0 with a 6-member court (two were sick at the time). There was no magic odd-numbered formula which was required before that decision was made. No one today as a matter of politics views the decision as illegitimate for that reason, nor because the case was decided by too few members.

And FDR certainly is precedent for saying there were prudential reasons for believing the nine member court was inadequate for the historical moment. Just because he lost in this political quest doesn't mean it was illegitimate.

Consider that FDR wanted to pack the court in 1937 through a bill scheming to swell its numbers because the Supreme Court kept thwarting his New Deal legislation in Congress as unconstitutional from 1933. The Great Depression was a dire moment in American history, requiring, in FDR's mind, one attempt after another to alleviate it, no matter how unprecedented.

The other powers that be thought otherwise.

But eventually and fortuitously one justice on the Supreme Court, named Roberts !!! by the way, actually switched sides to favor a New Deal case pleasing to FDR, which ended up having the odd result of taking the wind out of FDR's court-packing sails.

The March 1937 5-4 decision came to be known for this reason as "the switch in time which saved nine". The court showed that it could, in fact, rule New Deal ideas constitutional. That removed the argument for packing the court, by effect if not by intent. The nine member court was adequate after all.

It's an interesting case showing the power of the Supremes, not just to rule, but to maneuver.

The presidential appointment power is a political matter because the president is elected.

But don't kid yourself that the court absolutely eschews politics when rendering its opinions. Though not politically conservative in nature, a March 1937 ruling upholding innovative, New Deal legislation, ended up preserving the traditional character of the Supreme Court reaching back to just after the Civil War. And it persists to this day.

The founders were genius in this respect, recognizing that political forces are inescapable and must be accepted, accounted for, and balanced in order to prevent a lurch into the absolute tyranny of a single one of the branches of government.

The imperative of the moment is the free exercise of politics within the constitutional framework, not tampering with the framework.

Never forget, one week before Election 2016 Trump was getting creamed in the polls in WI, MI and PA and ended up winning them all

"He's NOT going to retake WI (Clinton +5.7), Michigan (Clinton +6.7), Pennsylvania (Clinton +6), or New Mexico (Clinton +8.5)."

I said at the time, Tuesday Nov 1.

I said that it was dumb for Trump to be spending money in those states. Obviously Trump campaign internal polling must have indicated something quite different.

Today Biden is +5.5 in WI, +6.7 in MI and +7.1 in PA. 


Saturday, October 3, 2020

Election 2016's dirty little secret is that 52% of nonvoters were non-Hispanic whites, a huge untapped reservoir of votes feared by the identity politicians of the left

And Pew Research did its best to lie about them in this study from 2018, saying "nonvoters were more likely to be younger, less educated, less affluent and nonwhite. And nonvoters were much more Democratic".

Pew's own graph and statements show this not to be true.





























Nonvoters were more likely to be white, 52% vs. 46%, and fully 53% of them did not prefer Hillary Clinton in 2016: "37% expressed a preference for Hillary Clinton, 30% for Donald Trump and 9% for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein; 14% preferred another candidate or declined to express a preference". 

The American left fears this potential white vote, which is why it must lie about it, minimize it, drug it, demoralize it, and vilify it.

It is why you hear so much about mythical white supremacists in the news, and mythical violent white militias causing mayhem everywhere, even as media and Democrats deny Antifa is a thing or that BLM is violent. Meanwhile those leftist groups, anarchist and communist, are getting away with inciting and actually causing riots, arson, looting, injury, and murder on a previously unimaginable scale, now approaching a cost to the economy of $2 billion. Their foot soldiers are the half-educated, indoctrinated, young, poor products of America's unionized public schools.

The left demonizes whites in order to neuter them, knowing their deep-seated American cultural propensity for guilt derived from Christianity. It plays on that guilt and perverts it chiefly by outlawing religion in the schools and teaching white responsibility for slavery to your children qua white instead. Its greatest fear is whites who will no longer accept that new religion and that guilt and fight back. And it particularly fears any politician whose specific appeal is to them.

POLITICO knows the name of the game is suppressing Trump's white vote

 From the end of the story, which is intent on doing just that, here:

Even if the result is a margin of victory with noncollege-educated white voters that is smaller than it was four years ago, Trump will almost certainly carry that group. And if he can turn them out in greater numbers, he could shift the electorate toward him in several predominantly white states. Republicans and Democrats alike estimate there are hundreds of thousands of unregistered, noncollege-educated whites in key swing states that Trump could still pick up.

That fight for those voters was on display in Minnesota on Friday, where Trump and Biden appeared not in the Minneapolis-St. Paul suburbs, but in more culturally conservative, northern reaches of the state. Republicans there and in some of the whitest counties in the country say they haven’t seen any falloff for Trump, and many of them suspect that polls are still underrepresenting his support.

Stephanie Soucek, chair of the Republican Party in Wisconsin’s Door County said she sees more Trump signs in her county than she did in 2016. Jack Brill, acting chair of the local Republican Party in Sarasota County, Fla., said “the base in Sarasota County is as strong as ever.”

In Duluth, the target of much attention from the Trump campaign, the city’s former mayor, Gary Doty, acknowledged that the president may have shed some support among some white women because of “the way he presents himself. He’s sometimes crude and rude, and I don’t care for that style.”

However, he said, “I think there’s this silent group of people” who support Trump and will turn out for him.

Doty said that after he endorsed Trump recently, “people that wouldn’t talk to me about politics … after they heard I had supported the Trump ticket, would come say, ‘Hey, I’m for him, too.'"

Wednesday, September 30, 2020

Idiot caller from Michigan to Rush Limbaugh doesn't know Michigan's already a red state, claims Trump's $750 IRS payments were fees to file an extension when there are no such fees

LOL, when you file for an extension to file your taxes, it's entirely free. There are no fees. If you suspect you will owe taxes, however, you must make the payment at the time.

Crazy Michigan woman thinks she's a tax expert when even the IRS can't seem to decide how to finish its audit of Trump.

The New York Times article says Trump filed extensions to file and made various tax payments. He made payments totaling $5.2 million for the two years in question, 2016 and 2017, $1 million when he filed for an extension in 2016 and $4.2 million when he filed for an extension in 2017. His accountants carved out a nominal tax liability of $750 for each year when actually filing the two returns, on the assumption that the $5.2 million would be construed by the IRS as overpayments pending resolution of the claims made in the returns. Those moneys would then constitute pre-payment carry forwards for future tax years.  

The worst part of this call is that Rush Limbaugh just let this woman's BS out there without questioning it. He's as uninformed about this stuff as the next guy, and won't lift a finger to educate himself. It's irresponsible, but this is the same guy who calls the Minneapolis police "killers".

Rush Limbaugh is a horrible representative of conservatism. 

Today, here:

CALLER: Greetings from Michigan, Rush. We hope to be a red state soon.

RUSH: Yeah, that would be great.

CALLER: That would be great. You know, watching the debate was, you know, made your eyes want to bleed, but Chris Wallace set the pace with that first question about taxes. And don’t tell me he didn’t know that that $750 was the fee for an extension, not what he paid.

RUSH: He might not have known. I don’t know.

CALLER: How? If I know, it was in the news, he is the news —

RUSH: There we go. We’re making the assumption that people in the news business know more than you do. Don’t make that assumption.

It gets tiresome fact-checking Rush Limbaugh: Reagan "I'm paying for this microphone" was in Republican debate in New Hampshire 1980, not vs. Carter

 


Five weeks out from Election 2020 Biden is ahead of Trump by as much as Hillary was ahead of Trump five days before Election 2016

What, me worry?



Tuesday, September 29, 2020