PLEASE READ!!!

***** ALL users will have to request a password reset BEFORE you will be able to log into the forum. See the thread in the forum issues section for further instructions. If you have issues with this, email us at admin@urbanohio.com. *****

Author Topic: The Trump Presidency  (Read 29924 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8643
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3810 on: February 17, 2017, 08:22:30 AM »
The only reason we're dealing with this disastrous Trump Administration is because of the clueless, incompetent Bernie Sanders millennials who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton!! They evidently hated her so much that they couldn't see the forest through the trees. Look what we've got now. And they have the gall to get on here and other forums/websites and complain about Trump. You people are AMAZING!!!😱 You people should DAMN NEAR have you voting rights taken away!!!

And people like you who would apply political tests to basic civil rights are one of the reasons we have a Second Amendment.

This sounds exactly like the Trump loyalists (as opposed to the nose holders) did when it looked like Hillary would win.

The difference was that for all his faults and all the bluster of the orange kool aid drinkers, the campaign sought and found ways to convince the bulk of the right leaning Never Trump people to reach for the olfactory zone.  The Supreme Court was the main way.   The main point is they were never taken for granted.

To be fair, those people were a lot louder and more obstreperous than their left leaning Never Hillary counterparts, who the Dems took for granted.  But they weren’t quiet. 

Offline down4cle

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4629
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3811 on: February 17, 2017, 08:25:31 AM »
I'm Waiting for the fiscal conservatives to get upset about this tidbit:

Over eight years, Obama spent $87M on vacations.
In a month, Trump cost $40M between vacations and Trump Tower security. A MONTH and he's nearly half way to Obama's eight year total.


remember that a lot of this tax payer money is going right into the tax mooch's pocket.

Offline Hootenany

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2851
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3812 on: February 17, 2017, 08:36:04 AM »
I'm Waiting for the fiscal conservatives to get upset about this tidbit:

Over eight years, Obama spent $87M on vacations.
In a month, Trump cost $40M between vacations and Trump Tower security. A MONTH and he's nearly half way to Obama's eight year total.


remember that a lot of this tax payer money is going right into the tax mooch's pocket.

Fiscal conservatives will be taking the next 4 years off.  Like they always do under Republican administrations.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5278
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3813 on: February 17, 2017, 08:38:49 AM »
I'm Waiting for the fiscal conservatives to get upset about this tidbit:

Over eight years, Obama spent $87M on vacations.
In a month, Trump cost $40M between vacations and Trump Tower security. A MONTH and he's nearly half way to Obama's eight year total.


remember that a lot of this tax payer money is going right into the tax mooch's pocket.

Fiscal conservatives have been justifiably concerned about Trump's policies from the outset.  I think you'll find a lot of fiscal conservatives on the side of E Rocc's "nose holders" (recognizing that a Democratic administration would almost certainly be worse overall, since any number in the budget in the millions is more symbolic than substantive--the billions and trillions are where the action is), but not full-throated loyalists.  Ever since Trump came out during the primary and said that social security and Medicare don't need to be reformed, he's made it pretty clear that he wasn't pitching for the support of fiscal conservatives.  If anything, he's pitching for the support of the budgetary illiterate, a far larger segment of the electorate.

Of course, the interesting thing on the tax side is that he actually offered words in support of progressive taxation even during the Republican primary, which is (to put it mildly) odd during the time when Republicans are trying to out-Republican one another.  But his written tax plan (which he's probably not even read) is as budget-busting as any of the primary candidates', and the real mover on Republican tax policy is likely to remain Paul Ryan simply because Trump doesn't seem to care enough.  If he came out in defense of progressive taxation again, it would be interesting to see where the chips would fall on both sides of the aisle.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 08:41:08 AM by Gramarye »

Offline down4cle

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4629
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3814 on: February 17, 2017, 08:41:26 AM »
^ I agree with your comment but I cannot understand why congressional fiscal conservatives like Paul Ryan have yet to speak out against him.  I do follow many principled conservatives on Twitter that are going after Trump on many issues.  But I think Congressional Republicans need to grow a spine.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5278
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3815 on: February 17, 2017, 08:48:20 AM »
^ I agree with your comment but I cannot understand why congressional fiscal conservatives like Paul Ryan have yet to speak out against him.  I do follow many principled conservatives on Twitter that are going after Trump on many issues.  But I think Congressional Republicans need to grow a spine.

I think you write your comment before I edited to add my second paragraph.  I think Trump has signaled that he's largely going to give Paul Ryan what he wants on tax policy, since Trump personally doesn't care enough to take a strong stand on the issue.  Trump's signature issues all the way back to his announcement of his candidacy have been anti-globalism: trade, immigration, intervention.

Other issues become secondary.  Thus, for example, he doesn't actually care deeply about what Betsy DeVos does with the Department of Education.  If the Congressional Republicans wanted to eliminate it completely (and DeVos' job along with it), he probably would sign off on it; if they wanted to expand it for whatever reason, he probably would sign off on that, too.  Ditto tax policy.  As much as he claims to care about the economy, he thinks immigration and trade are bigger influences on that than tax policy.  I'm not saying he's right, I'm suggesting that he and his true-believer supporters believe this.  And in the world his blue-collar supporters inhabit, he and they might actually be right--immigration and trade have both largely enabled overall economic gains, but those gains have manifested in a mixed bag of results to the working class offset by unmistakable gains to the upper-middle-class and above.  Tax policy doesn't necessarily enter into that.

Offline Cleburger

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3864
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3816 on: February 17, 2017, 08:51:24 AM »
I'm Waiting for the fiscal conservatives to get upset about this tidbit:

Over eight years, Obama spent $87M on vacations.
In a month, Trump cost $40M between vacations and Trump Tower security. A MONTH and he's nearly half way to Obama's eight year total.


remember that a lot of this tax payer money is going right into the tax mooch's pocket.

I believe you--but do you have a link so we can share elsewhere? :)

Offline Eigth and State

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3817 on: February 17, 2017, 08:55:26 AM »
Quote
Those people were a lot louder and more obstreperous...

I learned a new word today.  :-)
 
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 06:05:49 PM by Eighth and State »

Offline down4cle

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4629
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3818 on: February 17, 2017, 08:55:49 AM »
^^^ It just seems that if Paul Ryan were the intellectual he pretends to be he would realize that his tax plan alone may work out fine but combined with isolationist policies is a recipe for disaster.  If I understand Trump's economic agenda, he is attempting to grow the economy using import replacement strategy.  Most economic data seem to show that building up export economy gives yo more bang for your buck.  Isolationist policies also go completely against mainstream Republic policy and even a good chunk of moderate Democratic fiscal policy.  We sure live in interesting times.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 08:59:59 AM by down4cle »

Offline Hts121

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 18146
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3819 on: February 17, 2017, 09:14:59 AM »
Fiscal conservative is a bit of a misnomer.  The big numbers mean nothing as self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives have routinely elected administrations under which we have seen dramatic rises in the deficit, causing more debt to be incurred.  The rub is where/how the money is spent.  The people that like to call themselves fiscal conservatives don't really care that much about the big budget items - SS, Medicare, and Defense spending - which make up something close to 3/4 of the pie.  They care about the small ticket items like SNAP because they can't stand the thought of $36 per year of their tax money going to what they would call welfare queens. 

PTD seems to want to infuse a YUGE amount of spending into the military, already our biggest budget item.  He also wants to reduce taxes in a way that is not budget neutral, thus causing the deficit to rise again. 
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 09:27:28 AM by Hts121 »

Offline Hts121

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 18146
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3820 on: February 17, 2017, 09:28:50 AM »
AP is reporting that PTD is considering mobilizing 100,000 National Guard troops to round up immigrants

Offline down4cle

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4629
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3821 on: February 17, 2017, 09:33:41 AM »
^ I had read this and I was under the impression that presidents have very limited authority over the national guard.  Gramarye seems to have a grasp of the legalities of government so perhaps he can chime in on this.


Edit:

I think I found my answer:

If the proposal is implemented, governors in the affected states would have final approval on whether troops under their control participate.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 09:36:09 AM by down4cle »

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5278
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3822 on: February 17, 2017, 09:39:51 AM »
^^^ It just seems that if Paul Ryan were the intellectual he pretends to be he would realize that his tax plan alone may work out fine but combined with isolationist policies is a recipe for disaster.  If I understand Trump's economic agenda, he is attempting to grow the economy using import replacement strategy.  Most economic data seem to show that building up export economy gives yo more bang for your buck.  Isolationist policies also go completely against mainstream Republic policy and even a good chunk of moderate Democratic fiscal policy.  We sure live in interesting times.

An export economy certainly can give more bang for the buck, I'm sure, but I honestly don't know the economic data on how much, and whether the distribution of those gains will be favorable to blue-collar workers, especially if the most powerful export industries are generally considered white-collar industries (technology, services).  Trump clearly does see the factories built along the northern border of Mexico post-NAFTA as factories that were "stolen" from the US or at least surrendered by the US in a "bad deal."  In this, he actually has more allies than will speak out publicly among rank and file Democrats, and it is almost certainly why he eked out the Rust Belt (and why he got his behind handed to him in California, where the export industries are technology and entertainment and the immigrant presence sustains the state's largest domestic-market blue-collar industry, agriculture).  Trump actually does see a future in American exports.  It's clearly one reason he openly embraced a looser monetary policy than any of his rivals during the campaign, in a phone call with NYT reporters that actually really stands out in hindsight for how lucid it was (in the sense of understanding the arguments, even if he came down the opposite side of it of where I would).

Fiscal conservative is a bit of a misnomer.  The big numbers mean nothing as self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives have routinely elected administrations under which we have seen dramatic rises in the deficit, causing more debt to be incurred.  The rub is where/how the money is spent.  The people that like to call themselves fiscal conservatives don't really care that much about the big budget items - SS, Medicare, and Defense spending - which make up something close to 3/4 of the pie.  They care about the small ticket items like SNAP because they can't stand the thought of $36 per year of their tax money going to what they would call welfare queens. 

PTD seems to want to infuse a YUGE amount of spending into the military, already our biggest budget item.  He also wants to reduce taxes in a way that is not budget neutral, thus causing the deficit to rise again. 

Self-proclamation as a fiscal conservative means nothing, you mean.  Fiscal conservative has generally been a label embraced by supply-siders, who are actually anything but fiscal conservative and are simply the other side of the Keynesian coin (both sides happy to pump money into the economy by deficit spending, the only question being how to grow the deficit).  The consistent definition of fiscal conservative I use is support for balanced or surplus budgets (even if that means tax increases) combined with a strong dollar.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5278
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3823 on: February 17, 2017, 09:45:41 AM »
^ I had read this and I was under the impression that presidents have very limited authority over the national guard.  Gramarye seems to have a grasp of the legalities of government so perhaps he can chime in on this.


Edit:

I think I found my answer:

If the proposal is implemented, governors in the affected states would have final approval on whether troops under their control participate.

That is indeed the simple answer, as I understand it.

The one exception is that Congress (specifically Congress, not the president) has the ability to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union ..."  U.S. Const. art. I s. 8 cl. 15.  The "Militia" is generally understood to be the National Guard.  But obviously, Congress would also need to pay for that (anti-commandeering doctrine), and to put it mildly, I'm aware of neither authorization nor appropriation to that effect.  In fact, even when the National Guard has been placed at the disposal of the federal government in the past (most notably with respect to disaster relief), I think (but don't quote me on this) that it was generally done with the full blessing of the governors of those states.

Offline down4cle

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4629
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3824 on: February 17, 2017, 09:50:42 AM »
^ I'm thinking that this document is a bit of a trial balloon to gauge public reaction.  Whitehouse spokespeople are starting to claim that it is untrue. 

Offline audidave

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 1623
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3825 on: February 17, 2017, 09:53:22 AM »
It could also be finding out where the leaks are coming from.

Offline down4cle

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4629
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3826 on: February 17, 2017, 09:53:57 AM »
^ also a possibility. 

Offline down4cle

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4629
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3827 on: February 17, 2017, 09:58:08 AM »
It could also be an intentional leak of a fake document as a way to discredit the media.  It's a Soviet propaganda technique.

Offline E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8643
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3828 on: February 17, 2017, 10:08:35 AM »
Quote
Those people were a lot louder and more obstreperous...

I learned a new work today.  :-)
 

It's a very useful word for a parent of a kindergartener.

Offline 327

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6517
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3829 on: February 17, 2017, 11:37:31 AM »
^^^ It just seems that if Paul Ryan were the intellectual he pretends to be he would realize that his tax plan alone may work out fine but combined with isolationist policies is a recipe for disaster.  If I understand Trump's economic agenda, he is attempting to grow the economy using import replacement strategy.  Most economic data seem to show that building up export economy gives yo more bang for your buck.  Isolationist policies also go completely against mainstream Republic policy and even a good chunk of moderate Democratic fiscal policy.  We sure live in interesting times.

Problem is, every country wants to export as much as possible so it still comes down to currency and trade policy.  Other problem is, you can't really export much from a service economy.  And ours is still the primary world market for goods, so some degree of import replacement seems necessary.

Offline ryanlammi

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4518
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3830 on: February 17, 2017, 11:39:49 AM »
^Is a strong dollar good?

Offline jbcmh81

  • Burj Khalifa 2,722'
  • *****
  • Posts: 1321
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3831 on: February 17, 2017, 11:59:17 AM »
I'm Waiting for the fiscal conservatives to get upset about this tidbit:

Over eight years, Obama spent $87M on vacations.
In a month, Trump cost $40M between vacations and Trump Tower security. A MONTH and he's nearly half way to Obama's eight year total.


remember that a lot of this tax payer money is going right into the tax mooch's pocket.

Fiscal conservatives have been justifiably concerned about Trump's policies from the outset.  I think you'll find a lot of fiscal conservatives on the side of E Rocc's "nose holders" (recognizing that a Democratic administration would almost certainly be worse overall, since any number in the budget in the millions is more symbolic than substantive--the billions and trillions are where the action is), but not full-throated loyalists.  Ever since Trump came out during the primary and said that social security and Medicare don't need to be reformed, he's made it pretty clear that he wasn't pitching for the support of fiscal conservatives.  If anything, he's pitching for the support of the budgetary illiterate, a far larger segment of the electorate.

Of course, the interesting thing on the tax side is that he actually offered words in support of progressive taxation even during the Republican primary, which is (to put it mildly) odd during the time when Republicans are trying to out-Republican one another.  But his written tax plan (which he's probably not even read) is as budget-busting as any of the primary candidates', and the real mover on Republican tax policy is likely to remain Paul Ryan simply because Trump doesn't seem to care enough.  If he came out in defense of progressive taxation again, it would be interesting to see where the chips would fall on both sides of the aisle.

Based on what are you saying that a Democratic administration would've been worse?  The last 2 Democrats in office were both much better on spending and debt than either of their respective preceding Republican administrations.  And it was repeatedly reported that the economic plan of Hillary would've added less debt than Trump's.  This idea that Republicans are automatically much more fiscally responsible hasn't been true in at least 30 years.  Probably not since at least Reagan.

Offline down4cle

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4629
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3832 on: February 17, 2017, 12:14:01 PM »
^^ service based economies can be export based.   If a call center in US is supporting global customers then it is service based.  Bringing outside money onto US is export. 

Offline 327

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6517
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3833 on: February 17, 2017, 12:16:57 PM »
^Is a strong dollar good?

No.  A strong RMB would be bad for China which is why they manipulate it downward.  And the Euro is killing Greece.  Greek currency should be able to devalue to the point that its goods become competitive with German exports.  But it can't, so Greece is stuck on an illusory equal footing and can only survive by borrowing from Germany.  Does that remind you of anything?

^^ service based economies can be export based.   If a call center in US is supporting global customers then it is service based.  Bringing outside money onto US is export. 

Call centers?  Americans aren't known for their foreign language skills.  Yes, that needs to improve.  But not so we can all work at call centers.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 12:30:58 PM by 327 »

Offline down4cle

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4629
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3834 on: February 17, 2017, 12:37:24 PM »
^ Call Center was just an example.  A poor one probably but pointing out that exporting is just manufactured goods.

a strong dollar is neither good or bad.  The answer is: it depends.

Offline 327

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6517
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3835 on: February 17, 2017, 12:41:51 PM »
Depends on what?  Our industrial base is shattered.  That factors heavily in favor of a weaker dollar.  A strong dollar is good for buying foreign oil but I'm not sure that should be our priority going forward.

Offline down4cle

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4629
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3836 on: February 17, 2017, 12:47:11 PM »
It is not really that simple.  A strong dollar and weak dollar both have advantages and disadvantages.

Offline eastvillagedon

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3837 on: February 17, 2017, 01:07:04 PM »
this is why we need charter schools :-(

Staten Island Father Furious Over Homework Assignment Slamming Trump

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/02/16/trump-homework-assignment/
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 01:07:16 PM by eastvillagedon »

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5278
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3838 on: February 17, 2017, 01:12:32 PM »
Depends on what?  Our industrial base is shattered.  That factors heavily in favor of a weaker dollar.  A strong dollar is good for buying foreign oil but I'm not sure that should be our priority going forward.

A weak dollar is better for exports.  And since it seems like everyone wants to be an exporter, everyone races to have the weakest currency.

A strong dollar is better for more than just imports, though.  A strong dollar is better for economywide financing terms, for real purchasing power of wages against commodity-based goods including raw and finished agricultural products and textiles (or "food" and "clothing," as the unwashed masses sometimes call them), and for allowing American businesses to be acquirers rather than targets on the global M&A market (which does have impacts beyond mere prestige).  Because wages tend to be "sticky," a strengthening dollar actually generally correlates positively with purchasing power, whereas a weakening dollar correlates negatively with it (in a very real sense, a stronger dollar has the same effect as a raise to everyone working at any company that manages to stay solvent in a more disciplined monetary environment).

Offline eastvillagedon

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3839 on: February 17, 2017, 01:13:11 PM »
... and at the fancy Dalton School, where the 1% sends their kids. The crackup continues...

Liberal mom clique forces school to cancel skating party at Trump rink

http://nypost.com/2017/02/17/prep-school-cancels-party-at-trump-wollman-rink-over-parents-protests/