Re: U.S. Economy Grows 3.2% in Q1,Smashing Expectations

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 4/26/19 10:33 AM, MAGA. No Collusion.No Obstruction wrote:
> The U.S. economy grew at a 3.2 percent annual rate in the first three months of 2019 — beating Wall Street’s expectations of 2.5 percent growth — according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
> The advance in the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic health, marks an acceleration from a 2.2 percent gain in the previous October-December period. Disposable personal income saw a boost of 3 percent. while overall prices grew by 0.8 percent. In the first quarter, inventory rebuilding added 0.7 percentage point to growth, while a falling trade deficit boosted growth by a full percentage point. Consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of economic activity, slowed to growth at a rate of just 1.2 percent in the first quarter. In particular, spending on durable goods fell at a rate of 5.3 percent, the biggest decline in a decade, led by a sharp drop in light truck sales.
>

*Capitalism* is making the economy stronger by improving efficiency,
which in turn creates less waste of energy which creates less pollution
per human footprint.

CAPITALISM is GOOD FOR AMERICA and the WORLD and got the PLANETS HEALTH
and resources. It meas we feed more people with less fossil fuel and we
build more cars with less wasted time and energy per unit because the
machines that took energy and time and fossil fuel to build and move are
running at optimum levels rather than sitting doing nothing and but
becoming outdated technology.


Reversing Obama and Democrats Socialism/Marxism is GOOD FOR AMERICA and
keeps us from becoming another Venezuela.

Obama and the democrats seem intent on forcing America to become a 3rd
world failure like Venezuela.


--
That's Karma

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 4/26/19 11:32 AM, David Hartung wrote:

> On 4/26/19 9:33 AM, MAGA. No Collusion.No Obstruction wrote:
>> The U.S. economy grew at a 3.2 percent annual rate in the first three
>> months of 2019 —  beating Wall Street’s expectations of 2.5 percent
>> growth —  according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
>> The advance in the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of
>> economic health, marks an acceleration from a 2.2 percent gain in the
>> previous October-December period. Disposable personal income saw a
>> boost of 3 percent. while overall prices grew by 0.8 percent. In the
>> first quarter, inventory rebuilding added 0.7 percentage point to
>> growth, while a falling trade deficit boosted growth by a full
>> percentage point. Consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of
>> economic activity, slowed to growth at a rate of just 1.2 percent in
>> the first quarter. In particular, spending on durable goods fell at a
>> rate of 5.3 percent, the biggest decline in a decade, led by a sharp
>> drop in light truck sales.
>

> Expect the Democrats to give the credit to Obama, or to the Democrat
> controlled House.
>

Well, the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES UNDER PELOSI has passed nothing that
would get out of the Senate or survive the Presidents VETO.... so the
fact they have been stalled much better than when the HOUSE OF REPS was
Republican run BY PAUL RYAN who was one of the ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS
and tried to FEED THE SWAMP rather than starve it.... is now CAUSING
the U.S. economy to grow like it should.

TRUMP has cut regulations in a 2 for 1 program where "every one new
regulation requires two regulations to be removed" and that is forcing
the government to only keep the regulations which are the most needed.

This forces government to trim the regulations which in return, allows
the PRIVATE SECTOR economy to grow at a pace that catching up to the
pace that the government is growing and spending money.


--
That's Karma

[Just Wondering]

The Constitution establishes three branches of government - the
Legislative, given the power to enact laws, the Executive, given the
power to enforce those laws, and the Judicial, given the power to
resolve disputes arising under those laws. This separation of powers is
designed to prevent the federal government from becoming too powerful.

Government regulations are the creature of administrative agencies
created by the Legislative branch, nominally subject to the Executive
branch, and accepted by the Judicial branch. This is so even though the
Constitution does not provide a framework for such agencies, and an
administrative agency enacts regulations with the force of law, enforces
those regulations, and adjudicates disputes arising under its
regulations, combining the powers of all three branches of government
within a single extra-constitutional entity.

Why aren't Congress, POTUS, and SCOTUS troubled by a surrender of their
powers to agencies? Why don't more people see a problem with this?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Apparently that part needs a little tweaking to make it better and TRUMP
started that process.

> Government regulations are the creature of administrative agencies
> created by the Legislative branch, nominally subject to the Executive
> branch, and accepted by the Judicial branch.  This is so even though the
> Constitution does not provide a framework for such agencies, and an
> administrative agency enacts regulations with the force of law, enforces
> those regulations, and adjudicates disputes arising under its
> regulations, combining the powers of all three branches of government
> within a single extra-constitutional entity.
>
> Why aren't Congress, POTUS, and SCOTUS troubled by a surrender of their
> powers to agencies?  Why don't more people see a problem with this?

That's a GOOD QUESTION, and I think that they did it without any
delegated power in the Constitution to do it.

For one thing, Congress nor the President can abdicate or transfer or
*RE-DELEGATE* any power that was delegated to them in the Constitution.

To do that would require an AMENDMENT to the Constitution.


--
That's Karma

[Just Wondering]

Well, I think POTUS has the implied power to delegate powers to
subordinates under his supervision. But that's not how agencies get
their power. I don't see how Congress can constitutionally sub-delegate
legislative powers to critters outside the legislative branch, and I
don't see how Congress can constitutionally delete executive powers that
the Constitution reserves to POTUS, or delegate judicial powers to
entities outside the Judicial branch.

Because of this, I think that most of what administrative agencies do is
unconstitutional. Especially so-called "independent agencies" that
aren't under the direct supervision of any of the three branches of
government.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

That would be if the President is delegating the "work" NOT the
power.... they have to do what the President requires which is why the
President has delegated powers and writes EXECUTIVE ORDERS and uses them
to delegate his policy decisions to some or all his employees who work
for the Executive Branch.

What they don't have the power to do is to work independent of the
President and they don't have the power to make laws (regulations) which
they consider sub-laws that set guidelines for laws that are being
enforced. That should be the Legislature or if it's for training and
personal safety of the Executive branch employees then they can act on
the Presidents decisions. But adding to the law to create a new source
of legal jeopardy for the public doesn't look like it's Constitutional.

So the EPA can't just add new regulations that we have to abide by, but
they can set rules that the suggests for executive branch employees and
that they must live and work by.

> But that's not how agencies get
> their power.  I don't see how Congress can constitutionally sub-delegate
> legislative powers to critters outside the legislative branch, and I
> don't see how Congress can constitutionally delete executive powers that
> the Constitution reserves to POTUS, or delegate judicial powers to
> entities outside the Judicial branch.

The Judicial branch is set up by Congress.... which is probably why the
President appoints the Supreme Court Justices and the lesser judges.

> Because of this, I think that most of what administrative agencies do is
> unconstitutional. Especially so-called "independent agencies" that
> aren't under the direct supervision of any of the three branches of
> government.

There really can't be an independent agency under this Constitution,
they have no powers delegated and no one in government can delegate new
powers or transfer their own powers to them without an Article 5
Amendment to the Constitution to delegate that power.

And so far they created with the 16th Amendment the Federal Reserve and
the IRS in 1913 when no one was looking. And used the idea of WWI as an
excuse. Those agencies started by Democrats led by Woodrow Wilson have
been a total disaster for Americans.

And they also set a precedence showing that they need an Amendment to
create these feckless agencies. But there is NO Amendment delegating
the power to create a DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Nor the EPA.

I think they tried to suggest that the EPA is part in parcel the FBI but
the FBI was side tracked investigating EPA type violations so it was OK
to just create an EPA as a sub division which they called an agency. And
then ignored that it was unconstitutional.

Which makes me wonder if the EPA is as corrupt as the FBI, I figure it
probably is.

Which again it's all unconstitutional anyways.

--
That's Karma

[Peter Franks]

They can't. The FIRST sentence of the Constitution proper:

Article. I. Section. 1.

/All/ legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a /Congress/
of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives.

>, and I
> don't see how Congress can constitutionally delete executive powers that
> the Constitution reserves to POTUS, or delegate judicial powers to
> entities outside the Judicial branch.
>
> Because of this, I think that most of what administrative agencies do is
> unconstitutional. Especially so-called "independent agencies" that
> aren't under the direct supervision of any of the three branches of
> government.

Problem is that the inmates are running the asylum. Adherence to
Constitutional dictates are only observed when it furthers their agenda.

[Just Wondering]

I actually asked my Constitutional Law professor about this. He agreed
about the doubtful constitutional authority, but thought such agencies
are so entrenched in government that they are here to stay anyway.

[Peter Franks]

Yep, as is a bunch of other unconstitutional things (laws,
interpretations of laws, etc.).

It's a real mess, and we aren't moving in the right direction. If we
don't correct this in an orderly fashion, it will eventually be
corrected in a disorderly fashion. You and I obviously prefer the
former, but it is likely that the latter will come to pass.

[bigdog]

We should adopt the same policy for government programs and agencies. Kill two
old ones for every new on created.

[Just Wondering]

Meanwhile we largely live under extra-constitutional
administrative agency rule.

[Just Wondering]

We should be killing agencies, period. Starting with those
whose so-called constitutional foundation is the Commerce
Clause (the Department of Commerce itself possibly excepted).