September 18, 20241 yr 7 minutes ago, Alphagrand said: I watched an interview recently, I believe it was Benjamin Labatut -- who explained this pet-eating nonsense perfectly. He said it's not important whether the story is true; what is important is Trump is seeking to make Immigration the central issue of this election, and energize voters to go to the polls and vote on it. He summed it up by saying "If this election is about immigration, Trump wins. If the election is about Abortion or the future, Harris wins." The Republican ticket and the Trump campaign has nothing to offer in terms of policy, jobs, the economy, health care, human rights -- any normal campaign issues -- so they're defaulting back to trying to make this election about race, because it's their only play. This charade in Ohio affects JD Vance's own constituents and he doesn't care. He's already said if it takes a lie to wake voters up to the "real danger" (translation: the real danger as Trump/Vance want voters to believe) facing the country, they will push it. I dunno if it even requires any kind of in-depth interview. The GOP will always try to win on immigration. It's just that compared to previous GOP candidates, MAGA is talking about it in the dumbest way possible. I guess they hope is stirs up more of the looneys, even if it turns off the normies. Because I'd imagine there are some sane conservatives out there who think "Yeah, I'm concerned about immigration...but you don't have to talk to me about Haitians eating dogs and cats like I'm a F-ing moron."
September 18, 20241 yr 23 minutes ago, Lloyd said: I dunno if it even requires any kind of in-depth interview. The GOP will always try to win on immigration. It's just that compared to previous GOP candidates, MAGA is talking about it in the dumbest way possible. I guess they hope is stirs up more of the looneys, even if it turns off the normies. Because I'd imagine there are some sane conservatives out there who think "Yeah, I'm concerned about immigration...but you don't have to talk to me about Haitians eating dogs and cats like I'm a F-ing moron." The problem for Trump here is that he's face planted harder on illegal immigration than he had any need to. Forcing the GOP to kill their own bill that would've helped the situation put him in a spot where he's vulnerable on something that's supposed to be his strength. So now they've got to widen it out to anyone that's here period, legally or illegally. Legal immigration is pretty popular so it's far less fertile ground, so they're just focussed on straight up replacement theory sheet.
September 18, 20241 yr 40 minutes ago, Lloyd said: I dunno if it even requires any kind of in-depth interview. The GOP will always try to win on immigration. It's just that compared to previous GOP candidates, MAGA is talking about it in the dumbest way possible. I guess they hope is stirs up more of the looneys, even if it turns off the normies. Because I'd imagine there are some sane conservatives out there who think "Yeah, I'm concerned about immigration...but you don't have to talk to me about Haitians eating dogs and cats like I'm a F-ing moron." A looney vote is worth the same as a normie vote. So yes, that is the GOP strategy. Replace all the normies with a bunch of looneys, and you can convince them of anything you want: Haitians eating cats, sex-change operations in schools, whatever.
September 18, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, Alphagrand said: The Republican ticket and the Trump campaign has nothing to offer in terms of policy Holy irony meter. Kambla refuses to state policy positions and when she tries, she's essentially running on things she's actively made worse during her time in the white house.
September 18, 20241 yr 5 hours ago, Toastrel said: How are you going to bring down the cost of food and groceries? "I will put tariffs on foods coming in from other countries." oTHER COUNTRIES WILL PAY FOR YOUR FOOD!!!!!!! ITSS EKONOMICS FOR HIGH IQ PEOPLE!!!!!
September 18, 20241 yr Look at the eyes and facial expressions. Why are they always like this? Is it SSRIs?
September 18, 20241 yr 11 minutes ago, Kz! said: Look at the eyes and facial expressions. Why are they always like this? Is it SSRIs?
September 18, 20241 yr 4 minutes ago, Bill said: Hey @vikas83, what’s the read on the rate cuts? I think cutting 50 bps is insane when unemployment is below 5%, but they clearly think inflation is tamed and want to avoid a recession. They are talking about 50 more by year end, and 100 more after that in 2025. Addressing the new reality that rates will be 2.5-3.5%, which will make people unhappy. All in all, it's a mixed bag -- 50 now is good for bulls, but a LT base rate of 3% as opposed to 2%, along with inflation running above 2%, is a negative. Here are some notes from desks: Quote BofA Econ: This is a mixed message from the Fed. The labor market outlook is concerning enough that they need to cut by 50bp today, but things will stabilize if they downshift to 25s immediately and cut at a pace of 25bp per quarter next year. In fact 9 of the 19 members have 75bp in total for this year. That would imply a pause in Nov. They seem extremely confident that they can backstop the labor market with relatively benign cuts. Solid growth forecasts and the u-rate mostly just marked to market (and not increasing further next year). They're really trying to sell this as a quick recalibration, followed by very methodical cuts, and not sure the markets buy in. --------------------------------- (BMO)First Take on the Dots from Ben Kneejerk read on the dots is a shallower cutting cycle to a potentially higher neutral rate, long run dot higher, and terminal being reached at a 3% upper bound by the end of 2026 More cuts now, but not as low a finish line as Powell not yet willing to show a return to accommodative territory is necessary ------------------------- What bulls will say: the Fed decided to start the process w/an outsized move (and the support for it was broad), and the dots point to a fairly aggressive easing cycle over the next 1.5-2 years, with another 50bp of cuts this year and 100bp in 2025. While the unemployment rate forecasts moved higher, the revisions weren’t dramatic, while the GDP assumptions barely moved. That, coupled with the relatively static language in the statement on the economy, suggests Powell and his colleagues aren’t terribly nervous about the growth backdrop. What bears will say: the entire universe of carbon-based lifeforms was prepared for a Fed cut, so this decision shouldn’t surprise anyone. Stocks have rallied pretty meaningfully into the announcement, leaving them vulnerable to a "sell-the-news” reaction. The new forecasts don’t show inflation returning to the 2% target until ’26, raising questions about how aggressive the Fed will be on incremental cuts going forward. Finally, the terminal rate assumption continues to move up and is closing in on 3%, a hawkish development. ------------------------- The language describing the economy in the official FOMC statement didn’t evolve much – economic activity was still described as expanding at a "solid pace” while the unemployment rate "remains low”. Inflation has made further progress in returning to the target but remains "somewhat elevated”. There was one dissenter, with Michelle Bowman favoring a 25bp cut instead of the 50bp (the fact there weren’t more dissenters is notable – this points to relatively broad support for the outsized move) The dots shifted lower, with the median Funds Rate now forecast at 4.4% at the end of this year (implying another 50bp worth of cuts), 3.4% at the end of ’25 (implying 100bp in cuts next year), and 2.9% in ’26 (implying 50bp of cuts in ’26). The terminal rate assumption ticked up 10bp, from 2.8% to 2.9%. The GDP estimates barely moved for ’24, ’25, and ’26. The unemployment rate forecasts shifted higher, reaching 4.4% for ’24 (up from 4%), 4.4% in ’25 (up from 4.2%), and 4.3% in ’26. The new ’27 forecast is 4.2%. The core PCE forecast shifted down for ’24 to 2.6% (from 2.85) and for ’25 to 2.2% (from 2.3%). It was unchanged at 2% in ’26 and the new ’27 estimate is 2%.
September 18, 20241 yr 42 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Zucker posted bull sheet dreamed up by Russian bots?!! No way! In fairness to Zuker, he didn't read it before he posted it.
September 18, 20241 yr 47 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Zucker posted bull sheet dreamed up by Russian bots?!! No way! They just don't know how to deal with the "normal people" thing where a candidate is boring but you just dislike their policies, so they gotta make up weird comic book ish.
Create an account or sign in to comment