• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

25th Amendment - proof it needs to be exercised



:coffeepap

ETRAZXcXYAwb093


Stable Genius at work :roll:
 
justabubba said:
here is a thread to post statements and/or actions of the president which should be considered indicative the 25th Amendment needs to be exercised

first up, tRump insisting that the US economy "is very strong":


followed by tRump next insisting that the Fed rate should be reduced from 2.25% to 1.25% aided by quantitative easing to boost the econmy






a strong economy does not require such a boost. so, is the economy as strong as he insists? is this indication enough that tRump's mental facilities are so diminished that the 25th Amendment needs to be exercised?

as you find other indications that the 25th Amendment should be considered, please post the rationale here

the text of said amendment follows [emphasis added by bubba]:
Click to expand...

Um, without the Fed, interest rates would be determined by the market. It is DC that looks at things in terms of positive effect of government action, when in fact it is the opposite. The only reason it is a "boost" to the economy for the Fed to ease up on interest rates and other levers it uses to restrict the supply and raise the cost of capital is because keeping the fed funds rate higher and increasing the cost of capital DAMPENS it in the first place.

YOU see the Fed lowering rates (which would be lower to begin with absent Fed action) as pushing DOWN the accelerator...it is actually taking its foot OFF the brakes!

The Fed has almost always been behind the curve, playing catch-up on monetary policy. The Great Depression is literally a text-book example of the damage the Fed can do with the power it has (and the one that Milton Friedman won his Nobel Prize in Economics for if I am not mistaken).

We were at virtually full employment, with little to no inflation, there was no need for the fed to keep interest rates up. Interest rates should be as low as feasible without triggering significant inflation.
 
Marcus1124 said:
We were at virtually full employment, with little to no inflation, there was no need for the fed to keep interest rates up. Interest rates should be as low as feasible without triggering significant inflation.
Click to expand...

No we weren't

Unemployment was at 3.6% in January
 
Mycroft said:
The Fed screwed up and they both reduced GDP growth by a whole percentage point and increased the national debt. Now they are trying to walk it back without spooking the Wall Street gamblers.

This isn't the result of anything that Trump did...in fact, Trump told them NOT to do it.

But when it turned out that Trump was right and that the Fed knows it, we have people blathering nonsense about the 25th Amendment.

TDS strikes again.
Click to expand...

What?
 
Mycroft said:
The Fed screwed up and they both reduced GDP growth by a whole percentage point and increased the national debt. Now they are trying to walk it back without spooking the Wall Street gamblers.

This isn't the result of anything that Trump did...in fact, Trump told them NOT to do it.

But when it turned out that Trump was right and that the Fed knows it, we have people blathering nonsense about the 25th Amendment.

TDS strikes again.
Click to expand...
Trump says Fed ‘boneheads’ should cut interest rates to zero ‘or less,’ US should refinance debt
Click to expand...
Trump says Fed '''boneheads''' should cut interest rates to zero '''or less,''' US should refinance debt
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That's a great idea, in fact, I'll agree to personally take on $1T of the national debt in exchange for a $1M modest management fee - paid in advance with gold. ;)
Click to expand...

the fool was suggesting the fed loan money and then pay the recipient interest for borrowing it

that tells us how and why he bankrupt casinos
 
Dayton3 said:
Full employment in the U.S. is normally considered to be when unemployment rates are about 5-6%.
Click to expand...

Keynes had an opinion about that. possibly, a very valid opinion which deserves being made known:
"The Conservative belief that there is some law of nature which prevents men from being employed, that it is 'rash' to employ men, and that it is financially 'sound' to maintain a tenth of the population in idleness for an indefinite period, is crazily improbable - the sort of thing which no man could believe who had not had his head fuddled with nonsense for years and years. The objections which are raised are mostly not the objections of experience or of practical men. They are based on highly abstract theories – venerable, academic inventions, half misunderstood by those who are applying them today, and based on assumptions which are contrary to the facts… Our main task, therefore, will be to confirm the reader's instinct that what seems sensible is sensible, and what seems nonsense is nonsense." – J. M. Keynes
Click to expand...

any full employment level less than 100% should be found a government excuse for the under-employment of its citizens who are both seeking and able to work
 
justabubba said:
Keynes had an opinion about that. possibly, a very valid opinion which deserves being made known:


any full employment level less than 100% should be found a government excuse for the under-employment of its citizens who are both seeking and able to work
Click to expand...

Some level of unemployment if perfectly natural. Like Transitional Unemployment.
 
Dayton3 said:
Full employment in the U.S. is normally considered to be when unemployment rates are about 5-6%.
Click to expand...

That may be so.

I lived in the UK in the early 80's and unemployment stood at 10% and that was considered a recession.

5-6% doesn't sound tat much better to me.

Perhaps the USA needs higher standards ?
 
Rich2018 said:
That may be so.

I lived in the UK in the early 80's and unemployment stood at 10% and that was considered a recession.

5-6% doesn't sound tat much better to me.

Perhaps the USA needs higher standards ?
Click to expand...

there is a world of different between 6% and 10%.

About 2% of any unemployment figure will be "frictional" or "transitional" unemployment. Like when someone moves to a different location and takes a few weeks or months finding a new job they like. This is a common feature of extremely high demand professions like nursing where at least in the United States if you want a job you can get one.

About 1% to 2% of unemployment will be "seasonal". Now most people tend to think of seasonal unemployment as being farm labor temporarily out of work in the winter months, but winter greatly impacts the construction and building industries as well.
 
Last edited:
Dayton3 said:
there is a world of different between 6% and 10%.
Click to expand...

It's about 4%


About 2% of any unemployment figure will be "frictional" or "transitional" unemployment. Like when someone moves to a different location and takes a few weeks or months finding a new job they like. This is a common feature of extremely high demand professions like nursing where at least in the United States if you want a job you can get one.

About 1% to 2% of unemployment will be "seasonal". Now most people tend to think of seasonal unemployment as being farm labor temporarily out of work in the winter months, but winter greatly impacts the construction and building industries as well.
Click to expand...

So, seasonal workers get other jobs


People moving from job to job don't get unemployment because by the time their application is processed, they're already working again.
 
Rich2018 said:
It's about 4%




So, seasonal workers get other jobs


People moving from job to job don't get unemployment because by the time their application is processed, they're already working again.
Click to expand...

10% is 67% more than 6%. Don't believe me. Punch it into the calculator on your cell phone.

And it isn't that easy for seasonal workers to simply get other jobs.

And look up "unemployment" on something like Wikipedia if you doubt what I said about frictional or transitional unemployment.
 
Dayton3 said:
10% is 67% more than 6%. Don't believe me. Punch it into the calculator on your cell phone.
Click to expand...

Or punch in 10 - 6 (you'll get 4)


And it isn't that easy for seasonal workers to simply get other jobs.
Click to expand...

It is in full employment

Seasonal workers move to where the work is.


And look up "unemployment" on something like Wikipedia if you doubt what I said about frictional or transitional unemployment.
Click to expand...

And you look up "full employment"
 
Rich2018 said:
Or punch in 10 - 6 (you'll get 4)




It is in full employment

Seasonal workers move to where the work is.




And you look up "full employment"
Click to expand...

from the Wikipedia entry on "full employment".

For the United States, economist William T. Dickens found that full-employment unemployment rate varied a lot over time but equaled about 5.5 percent of the civilian labor force during the 2000s. Recently, economists have emphasized the idea that full employment represents a "range" of possible unemployment rates. For example, in 1999, in the United States, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) gives an estimate of the "full-employment unemployment rate" of 4 to 6.4%. This is the estimated unemployment rate at full employment, plus & minus the standard error of the estimate.

You lose.
 
Dayton3 said:
from the Wikipedia entry on "full employment".

For the United States, economist William T. Dickens found that full-employment unemployment rate varied a lot over time but equaled about 5.5 percent of the civilian labor force during the 2000s. Recently, economists have emphasized the idea that full employment represents a "range" of possible unemployment rates. For example, in 1999, in the United States, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) gives an estimate of the "full-employment unemployment rate" of 4 to 6.4%. This is the estimated unemployment rate at full employment, plus & minus the standard error of the estimate.

You lose.
Click to expand...

That's what the US regards as full employment.

It's not, they're wrong

You lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom