Trump Admin orders CEA to cook the books...

ShoelessRye

Gold Belt
@Gold
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
15,274
Reaction score
1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.ad377bab077b

Astonishingly, the White House still hasn’t released details for any of the major economic initiatives Trump promised during the campaign (a “terrific” Obamacare replacement, a top-to-bottom tax overhaul, massive infrastructure investment). But thanks to recent leaks about the administration’s economic book-cooking, we at least know that whatever Trump ultimately proposes will be very, very expensive.

After the election, the Trump transition team began the long, arduous process of putting together the presidential budget. As is always the case, it worked with the (non-political) career staffers at the Council of Economic Advisers.

Normally this process starts by asking the CEA staff to estimate baseline economic growth under current policies. These professionals then build on this baseline to forecast how the president’s proposals will affect the overall economy, as well as budget deficits.

The end results are often more optimistic than what independent forecasters predict — the White House is factoring in new policies it believes are pro-growth, after all — but not wildly so. The numbers still need to be credible.

Like I said, that’s how things normally work. Not this time around.

As the Wall Street Journal first reported (and as I’ve independently confirmed through my own sources), the Trump transition team instead ordered CEA staffers to predict sustained economic growth of 3 to 3.5 percent. The staffers were then directed to backfill all the other numbers in their models to produce these growth rates.

...

Inflation-adjusted economic growth over the past decade has been under 2 percent. And independent projections for the coming decade are equally lackluster, thanks in part to population aging. The Federal Reserve, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and private forecasters predict about 1.8 to 1.9 percent annual growth.


In other words, based on nothing but expediency, the Trump team prophesies growth that’s more than a full percentage point higher than almost anyone else expects.


Even conservative economists who believe that a tax-cutting, deregulatory agenda will unleash pent-up growth must find Trump’s forecasts-by-fiat hard to swallow.
So the non-partisan CBO and private forecasters predict 1.9, but Trump Admin ORDERED the CEA to predict sustained economic growth of 3% to 3.5%. You ask why any of this matters?

Supercharged growth implies higher tax revenue, as well as lower spending on means-tested programs such as Medicaid and unemployment insurance. As a result, astronomical economic growth is often used to paper over the astronomically large deficits that would result under more realistic assumptions.
So basically Trump Admin is cooking the books because his incoming budget is going to be very expensive and he's trying to hide it with his manipulation of the CEA numbers.

 
in before "fake news", "#maga", "she lost get over it" and "but obama . . ."
 
Excellent. And Ryan is proposing a border tax to close the gap in the budget, which isn't popular among republicans, so maybe plugging the growth number will let them get tax reform passed. I mean, if you close your eyes and wish it to be true it will just go away, right?!?!

The party of "fiscal responsibility" and "deficit reduction" will now blow up the deficit of which something like 70% of the cuts will go to top earners. Does that sound like a good spend to anyone?
 
Jesus H Titty Fucking Christ -- If true, then this is an abhorrent tactic that deserves to be chastised and relentlessly followed up on by the media. I'm all for cutting taxation and cutting spending -- but to mandate fudging numbers is not draining a swamp, it's adding landfill to it.
 
Last edited:
Trump does not like reality, so he is trying to get rid of it.
 
More 50 foot tall pumpkins from comrade Trumpov
 
Trumpsters don't care about policy at all. Should have put SWJ in the thread title. You might have tricked a few of them into reading this.
 
The washing post and ny times "confirmed" this story through cea yet no names have been mentioned. "Trumps transition team". Why dont these people ever give actual names?

Who from the trump transition team ordered it? Who from CEA dealt with that order?

I just dont believe it with zero evidence, especially when we know how corrupt the media is. Sounds like another hit piece. They never give any verifiable details.
 
The washing post and ny times "confirmed" this story through cea yet no names have been mentioned. "Trumps transition team". Why dont these people ever give actual names?

Who from the trump transition team ordered it? Who from CEA dealt with that order?

I just dont believe it with zero evidence, especially when we know how corrupt the media is. Sounds like another hit piece. They never give any verifiable details.

Actually it was the Wall Street Journal - or are they left wing fake news as well now?

As to Trump's view of the CEA -

During the campaign, Trump made no secret of his disdain for experts, economic or otherwise. He has since doubled down on this view by demoting the CEA chair from his Cabinet. Not that the demotion really matters at this point; a month into his presidency, Trump hasn’t named a single political appointee to the council.​
 
Huge if true. Surely Trump money can buy someone who can come up with a decent fiscal layout. My big grief so far with this administration is how things have been executed. Everything seems rushed, such as the immigration ban. I agree with the direction, but not the implementation.

Trump and his team better walk the line. The NSA seems to be out to get them. I'm sure Obama/Bush/Clinton all cooked the books, but they played ball with the right people so it was largely kept under wraps. Add that to the fact Obama made the NSA more powerful right before he left office and you have a watchful eye scrutinizing everything (which can be a good thing or used to push the Trump is bad narrative.)
 
Actually it was the Wall Street Journal - or are they left wing fake news as well now?

As to Trump's view of the CEA -

During the campaign, Trump made no secret of his disdain for experts, economic or otherwise. He has since doubled down on this view by demoting the CEA chair from his Cabinet. Not that the demotion really matters at this point; a month into his presidency, Trump hasn’t named a single political appointee to the council.​

All I want is proof but they don't give any names. "Trumps transition team" is not a person, so its impossible to point out who "ordered" it. Why not release the name of the person who ordered it? Surely they must have it if they investigated and confirmed, right?

The fact that no names are mentioned should be a red flag to anyone who appreciates the truth.
 
Not clicking the link. Let me guess, more unnamed "sources" and nothing tangible?
 
90% of our news today is unnamed sources and tweets.

What bothers me is the fact that all these stories are "confirmed" but the people invloved are never named. If something is confirmed then you have the names of the people who were invloved, otherwise it cant be confirmed.

So why are the names always left out?

People have said I take it too far with my asking for names and here was my response.

I don't think I am taking it too far. We live in the age of deceit. We have conflicting stories coming out everyday. Western media says Russia does something, Russia denies it, etc. Who is telling the truth?

Should we believe the western media simply because we are western, and they have the same narrative being pushed through all media outlets? No.

The only rational thing at this is to look at the facts and examine the evidence.

Anonymous sources and vague statements do not constitute as evidence, and certainly don't sway me to believe the media, who have been proven to be politically motivated and have spread false information on a regular basis.

We even have conflicting stories allegedly within the same agencies in the US. The recent headline of spies withholding information from Trump is a good example of that. We have people allegedly in the IC claiming this to be true. Keep in mind the sources claiming it to be true provide no names or actual evidence supporting it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/15/us-spies-reportedly-keeping-intelligence-from-trump.html

We have people in the IC claiming this is not true.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...national-intelligence-denies-withholding-info

The only rational thing to do at this point is to examine the evidence. If evidence is not provided, the claim should not be taken as fact until the evidence can be substantiated and confirmed.

Unfortunatelty a large majority of people care not about facts and evidence, but will base their opinions soley on the headline of an article which in most cases they don't even read.
 
All I want is proof but they don't give any names. "Trumps transition team" is not a person, so its impossible to point out who "ordered" it. Why not release the name of the person who ordered it? Surely they must have it if they investigated and confirmed, right?

The fact that no names are mentioned should be a red flag to anyone who appreciates the truth.
Not really. People don't leak with their names attached, but reporters and editors know their identities and their reputations are on the line. Protected sources are as old as journalism itself. Expecting name attribution is just a way to discredit any news you don't like. Trump's official responses have named attached and they lie.
 
Not really. People don't leak with their names attached, but reporters and editors know their identities and their reputations are on the line. Protected sources are as old as journalism itself. Expecting name attribution is just a way to discredit any news you don't like. Trump's official responses have named attached and they lie.

You cant hide behind anonimity when making these kinds of claims. If this really did happen then why cant we get the name of the person from the Trump transition team who ordered it, at the very least?

Have you ever suspected that maybe they dont give names because it never happened?

You still take the medias word as proof positive, despite the obvious collusion and political motivations?

Sorry but I dont. Its not a way for me to discredit news I dont like. If Trump does something I disagree with, Ill be the first one to say something, but show me proof.

Do you think its fair that they can hide behind anonimity so none of the stories can ever be truly verified by independant reporters?

The medias word is not good enough. Proof MUST be provided.
 
Not really. People don't leak with their names attached, but reporters and editors know their identities and their reputations are on the line. Protected sources are as old as journalism itself. Expecting name attribution is just a way to discredit any news you don't like. Trump's official responses have named attached and they lie.

He isn't asking for the journalist to give up their sources. He is asking for more information and verifiable stuff. What member of Trump's team gave the order to cook the books, and who did he order? What was the format of the order? Probably a memo or an email right? If so, can we have copies of that memo or email?


All we have now is that a unnamed source said an unnamed person told another unnamed person in vague terms to do something bad...and somehow Trump is behind it all. That's pretty shitty investigative journalism.
 
Jesus H Titty Fucking Christ -- If true, then this is an abhorrent tactic that deserves to be chastised and relentlessly followed up on by the media. I'm all for cutting taxation and cutting spending -- but to mandate fudging numbers is not draining a swamp, it's adding landfill to it.

I like cutting taxes and limiting spending as well. But Trump does not have that plan. He plans to cut taxes while increasing spending dramatically with military buildup and a trillion $ infrastructure program. He does not deny it. He has said it many times. If Republicans manage to allow this, the deficit will balloon, and the income disparity at the end of his term will make the current disparity look like communism by comparison.

As for the specific allegations here, I'd like to know who specifically told the CEA to do this. This does not strike me as classified information. Who told them to do it and what specifically did they say? Seems like a reasonable thing to report.
 
Do you guys think that naming the admin person would likely out the journalist's source? These guy all have staffers assigned to them. I'm sure if the story says Joe Blow ordered this, then probably Joe Blow's staffer is the only person who knew Joe Blow did it. Thus outing Joe Blow's staffer.

I'm not pointing at anyone in this thread but its crazy that there are people who ignore EVERY news story that is critical of the admin as fake news but then believe crazy conspiracy stuff like pizza gate.
 
I like cutting takes and limiting spending as well. But Trump does not have that plan. He plans to cut taxes while increasing spending dramatically with military buildup and a trillion $ infrastructure program. He does not deny it. He has said it many times.

As for the specific allegations here, I'd like to know who specifically told the CEA to do this. This does not strike me as classified information. Who told them to do it and what specifically did they say? Seems like a reasonable thing to report.

I havent see the numbers -- thus far he has apparently done more cutting than spending (not to say spending is not on the horizon)
 
Back
Top