Donald Trump


Recommended Posts

Maybe I didn’t made myself clear enough at first. So I will try again. My two main objections to the article by the Trump advisers I linked were what it lacked. The first I already made obvious – what are the private investors revenues? The second was government finances – revenues, spending and deficit. The article says the proposal is revenue neutral“The Trump infrastructure plan features a major private sector, revenue neutral option to help finance a significant share of the nation’s infrastructure needs.” After following with some rather complicated and questionable math (see below), they leave the bigger unknowns unanswered. There was nary a word about government spending or effect on the deficit or national debt.

Moreover, the authors said,For infrastructure construction to be financeable privately [ ].” Thus their given assumption is that a private investor (PI) provides the money – rather than government spending to hire and pay contractors, which is the traditional way. That makes an innuendo that the proposal involves no government spending and thus makes it deficit neutral. Whether that was deliberate or not, the deficit is too important to neglect.

A Trump webpage says: Harness market forces to help attract new private infrastructure investments through a deficit-neutral system of infrastructure tax credits.” Voila! Presto! The Trump advisers’ revenue-neutral morphs into deficit-neutral! 

cagle-trump-pied-piper.png

 

I say baloney. The proposal assumed the private investor borrows $833 of every $1,000 infrastructure spending. No PI in their right mind is going to borrow such money without a clear and reliable source of revenue to pay it back plus any interest, plus manage a decent return on $167 equity. So where would PI get the revenue? Almost certainly from governments, which would make it not deficit neutral. A government would commit to pay PI enough money for PI to pay off the debt and more. At least for repairing roads and bridges without tolls and likely much more, there is no other revenue source for PI to tap. The situation is very unlike PI making and selling widgets.

Regarding revenue neutral, the article makes the very questionable assumption that tax credits for the PI will be offset by taxes paid by contractors and workers on the new infrastructure, implicitly assuming they were idle resources beforehand. That is false to the extent, which is likely very large, the contractor or worker was already paying taxes due to other work and switches to working on a new infrastructure project.

MSK’s next reply – after his fallacious widget analogy – was that a booming economy is the solution. [W]hen the economy grows and American citizens and companies get more money, the government automatically gets more money (link). In other words, higher tax revenues will pay for the infrastructure. That is problematic for many reasons. Trump wants to reduce income taxes substantially. Even if more tax revenue occurs, there are many competing demands on it – growing deficits on pension and health schemes, more spending on defense, immigration control, etc. It’s nonsense to assume any added tax revenue will be all available for infrastructure. Of course, spending cuts elsewhere could help, but there is nothing in the Trump advisers’ document about spending cuts. Also, recent federal deficits and those projected thru 2021 are about $500 billion per year. Maybe MSK and Trump don’t care a whit about deficits, but I do. I would also bet the infrastructure spending would precede any higher tax revenues, which nearly guarantees it won’t be deficit-neutral. "Spend a $100 billion now, and get it back in taxes over the next decade. That’s deficit-neutral."  :lol:

Within the next few days I plan to post something on my blog about the phrase investing in infrastructure commonly used in political talk. Is it really investing? Quick answer: It depends, but often no.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, merjet said:

Maybe I didn’t made myself clear enough at first. So I will try again. My two main objections to the article by the Trump advisers I linked were what it lacked. The first I already made obvious – what are the private investors revenues? The second was government finances – revenues, spending and deficit. The article says the proposal is revenue neutral“The Trump infrastructure plan features a major private sector, revenue neutral option to help finance a significant share of the nation’s infrastructure needs.” After following with some rather complicated and questionable math (see below), they leave the bigger unknowns unanswered. There was nary a word about government spending or effect on the deficit or national debt.

Moreover, the authors said,For infrastructure construction to be financeable privately [ ].” Thus their given assumption is that a private investor (PI) provides the money – rather than government spending to hire and pay contractors, which is the traditional way. That makes an innuendo that the proposal involves no government spending and thus makes it deficit neutral. Whether that was deliberate or not, the deficit is too important to neglect.

A Trump webpage says: Harness market forces to help attract new private infrastructure investments through a deficit-neutral system of infrastructure tax credits.” Voila! Presto! The Trump advisers’ revenue-neutral morphs into deficit-neutral! 

cagle-trump-pied-piper.png

 

I say baloney. The proposal assumed the private investor borrows $833 of every $1,000 infrastructure spending. No PI in their right mind is going to borrow such money without a clear and reliable source of revenue to pay it back plus any interest, plus manage a decent return on $167 equity. So where would PI get the revenue? Almost certainly from governments, which would make it not deficit neutral. A government would commit to pay PI enough money for PI to pay off the debt and more. At least for repairing roads and bridges without tolls and likely much more, there is no other revenue source for PI to tap. The situation is very unlike PI making and selling widgets.

Regarding revenue neutral, the article makes the very questionable assumption that tax credits for the PI will be offset by taxes paid by contractors and workers on the new infrastructure, implicitly assuming they were idle resources beforehand. That is false to the extent, which is likely very large, the contractor or worker was already paying taxes due to other work and switches to working on a new infrastructure project.

MSK’s next reply – after his fallacious widget analogy – was that a booming economy is the solution. [W]hen the economy grows and American citizens and companies get more money, the government automatically gets more money (link). In other words, higher tax revenues will pay for the infrastructure. That is problematic for many reasons. Trump wants to reduce income taxes substantially. Even if more tax revenue occurs, there are many competing demands on it – growing deficits on pension and health schemes, more spending on defense, immigration control, etc. It’s nonsense to assume any added tax revenue will be all available for infrastructure. Of course, spending cuts elsewhere could help, but there is nothing in the Trump advisers’ document about spending cuts. Also, recent federal deficits and those projected thru 2021 are about $500 billion per year. Maybe MSK and Trump don’t care a whit about deficits, but I do. I would also bet the infrastructure spending would precede any higher tax revenues, which nearly guarantees it won’t be deficit-neutral. "Spend a $100 billion now, and get it back in taxes over the next decade. That’s deficit-neutral."  :lol:

Within the next few days I plan to post something on my blog about the phrase investing in infrastructure commonly used in political talk. Is it really investing? Quick answer: It depends, but often no.

 

The Laffer Curve redux?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, merjet said:

Maybe I didn’t made myself clear enough at first.

Merlin,

Of course you did.

And you did again in your very post.

5 hours ago, merjet said:

 

cagle-trump-pied-piper.png

That's about as clear as it gets. 

That's what you think of Trump and the people who understand his financial positions.

The rest is blah blah blah to try to express that.

Why on earth would anyone invest the time in unraveling your misunderstandings of Trump's productive processes and misunderstandings of the terms he uses? Apropos, you do a nice bait and switch with terms like "revenue neutral."

Regardless, it will always come back to mocking, not reason.

You are as clear as a clean windowpane about that.

And that's one of the reasons I prefer not to discuss faith with a disciple of a religion I don't agree with. (I don't mean not discuss at all. I do mean not get too technical.) They mock those who disagree with them and present rationalizations to support their mockery as reasoned discourse. All paths lead back to bait and switch, then mocking.

The fact is, mocking or no mocking, Trump will be in power and you will not. He will implement his ideas with the country and you will not. So we will see what unfolds. (And I will not hold my breath waiting for a retraction when his plans work out.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why, but the following short video with Chuck Todd and Kellyanne Conway reminds me of my previous post.

Todd has no interest in ever doing media sleaze differently than he is doing it. His reality is sleaze and he likes that reality. He wants to keep doing more of it. Doing responsible honest journalism is for suckers in his worldview.

So he mocks Kellyanne as if her complaints about the media is all she's got going intellectually.

I wish she had responded like Trump would have, something to the effect that she will change her tune when the press stops the dishonest sleaze.

All Todd wants to do is find words to attack her with so he can keep lying and manipulating. He is not interested one smidget in understanding reality correctly and presenting it to his public.

(I'm not trying to imply Merlin lies. His priority is faith in his dogmas and mocking, though. :) I guess that's what reminded me of Todd's approach. It also reminds me of the "but eraser." This is when you say something, then follow with "but..." It doesn't matter what you say after that, you have erased the first part. Todd wants to keep being the way Todd is and does irrespective of any change in knowledge or facts. So blaming Kellyanne for complaining about the press misbehavior is somehow supposed to erase that same misbehavior.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, merjet said:

I say baloney. The proposal assumed the private investor borrows $833 of every $1,000 infrastructure spending. No PI in their right mind is going to borrow such money without a clear and reliable source of revenue to pay it back plus any interest, plus manage a decent return on $167 equity. So where would PI get the revenue? Almost certainly from governments,

Technology innovations are quickly going to make it easy, without tollbooths, for private companies to get paid for use of roads, cheaply and conveniently.  Technology can now explode the lies of statist's, and their accountants, that all of the needs of citizens cannot be met by private enterprise in a practical way.  The arguments that these solutions are not practical are political arguments, nothing more.  A master businessman who believes in free market solutions would know better than a professional accountant steeped in decades of memorizing rules.  The argument that "it's math" is specious.  We need free markets, property rights, sound money, and a low regulatory environment and get the hell out of the way of the innovators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On November 24, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Geoff,

Say it "then"?

Actually, you said it before.

Gotcha!

:evil:  :) 

My broader point is that Trump is a doer, not just a talker. He's not even in office, so he hasn't had time or conditions to lie about Hillary Clinton. Or renege, for that matter. Or any other euphemism for immorality and selling out his supporters. 

Let's see what he does when Jeff Sessions does what he does about the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation. There are several investigations still ongoing. All the rest is nothing but verbal thrusts and parries with a dishonest, hostile press.

Buyer beware.

It's a mistake to treat words as deeds, especially when only words are possible right now, then call the man a liar--or say he is reneging--for not doing something he has no power to do one way or the other until he is sworn in. 

Michael

Well said.

When Trump and Conway said those gentle, caring, healing things about Hillary, I thought, that's good, some distance from what's coming. What's coming to many in the swamp, there's no need for nor any good that can come from Donald being associated with it, indeed just the opposite, so what they said was perfect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The recount people want a fight.

They're going to get one.

They haven't learned yet that Donald Trump is a brawler. And he likes to win. And he's damn good at it.

I kinda hope these recount things go into high gear. Trump and his people will blow the Democrat illegal voting machines sky high in the process. Not to mention what WikiLeaks is probably still sitting on (or what will arrive from whistle-blowers).

I think there's a reason President Obama urged Hillary Clinton to concede. A scandal like that--if fully exposed--could blow back on him and give him the unshakeable reputation of the most corrupt president in US history.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2016 at 3:31 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Now let us suppose the following:

What Trump wants: This stayed the same as before.
What Trump perceives as reality: This changed because reality changed or because previously unclear aspects of reality became known.

What Trump perceives as the best form of using that reality to get what he wants: This needs adjusting from the previous statement if Trump is to instruct others correctly to get what he wants.

:)

Michael

Ive gone back and read Trump and read him in such a way that I realize he isnt committed to doing any one thing in regard to Clinton. I suppose I read things the way I like and not the way theyre worded with plenty of latitude. It falls into a category of pronouncements made similar to Bushs', "No new taxes pledge."

Today, Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway told CNN's "State of the Nation" that Trump has not ruled out a criminal probe into Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state, even though Trump recently indicated he'd rather not do so.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1611/27/sotu.01.html

"He said he won't rule it out but he really isn't looking to hurt the Clintons. Given the fact that the base was so energized by the prospect of going after Hillary Clinton legally, is this something that you agree with? Should he be moving on from this? 

CONWAY: Well the full comment that he made was he's not focused on it and he said at the "New York Times" and elsewhere, I'm focused on health care and immigration. And then he went on the list all the issues that he's been talking about, trade, et cetera.

And so he said he wouldn't rule it out. He said it's just not his focus right now. I think he's being quite magnanimous and at the same time he's not undercutting at all the authority and the autonomy of the Department of Justice, of the FBI, of the House Committees, who knows where the evidence may lead if, in fact, it were -- if the investigation were re-opened somewhere. "

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

It falls into a category of pronouncements made similar to Bushs', "No new taxes pledge."

Geoff,

Actually it doesn't.

Bush said that phrase to get elected and I don't think he cared one way or the other. He was one cynical dude who didn't even hide his New World Order penchant (see his 1991 State of the Union Address).

I think Trump does care and I think he pities Hillary. He's been pretty clear to me when I look at his words. He has said several times he doesn't want to hurt the Clintons, but they've done terrible things. This is not a priority, that's all.

Think of it. He used to be friends with the Clintons. They came to his wedding, for goddsake. Chelsea and Ivanka are still close, so this is painful for him. He's committed to doing the right thing, though. He's never been one to shirk duty when he judged something was correct. He does what he has to do once he realizes it has to be done. Look how he savaged Hillary to get elected. He just doesn't have to like it and I don't blame him for that.

Somehow people think this means he's going to issue a pardon for Hillary or whatever and knew that while promising to lock her up during the campaign. You, yourself, are making it sound like he's lying to mislead people on purpose.

Here's what I think. I think the emotion got so heated in this election and the press painted such dumb over-the-top caricatures of each candidate, people still confuse the candidate with the caricature. So they think any little sign--no matter how irrelevant--is proof the caricature is true.

On the Hillary side, I have fought this urge inside myself. I think, in her own way, she loves America and wanted to be a good president. If I go with the caricature, I will think she is a mob boss or James Bond villain something. Granted, she's corrupt and would have wrecked this country through the Supreme Court due to her ideology, but she also not a man-eating monster. (That Spirit Cooking stuff was way weird, though. :) )

I think she's a typical back-stabbing politician who does some bad things, believes a lot of her own bullshit, sometimes has a good heart and does some good things. (Spiritually, the Netflix show, "House of Cards," nails the Clintons. The parallels are fantastic once you start looking.)

Trump is not the caricature the press made him out to be. He is miles ahead of the Bushes in moral quality and true leadership. Don't take my word for it, though. My humble suggestion is for you to keep your antenna up to see how his deeds align with his words in the end as his term of office unfolds.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel took on ISIS in Syria and killed four, without crossing the border on foot. The message was: mess with us and we will scorch the earth under your feet, and the air you breath.

Kellyanne Conway spoke out against Mitt Romney for Sec State over the weekend which was interesting. Romney is very anti-Russian. While not a split with Trump it does show some gumption on her part. At first I thought Mitt would be a good Mr. Secretary, but I am starting to rethink that. He would be a great talking head though.

Tracinski has an article out about President Trump’s cabinet choices which Robert describes as still too tough to call because of Trump’s lack of ideology.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Geoff,

Actually it doesn't.

Bush said that phrase to get elected and I don't think he cared one way or the other. He was one cynical dude who didn't even hide his New World Order penchant (see his 1991 State of the Union Address).

I think Trump does care and I think he pities Hillary. He's been pretty clear to me when I look at his words. He has said several times he doesn't want to hurt the Clintons, but they've done terrible things. This is not a priority, that's all.

Think of it. He used to be friends with the Clintons. They came to his wedding, for goddsake. Chelsea and Ivanka are still close, so this is painful for him. He's committed to doing the right thing, though. He's never been one to shirk duty when he judged something was correct. He does what he has to do once he realizes it has to be done. Look how he savaged Hillary to get elected. He just doesn't have to like it and I don't blame him for that.

Somehow people think this means he's going to issue a pardon for Hillary or whatever and knew that while promising to lock her up during the campaign. You, yourself, are making it sound like he's lying to mislead people on purpose.

Here's what I think. I think the emotion got so heated in this election and the press painted such dumb over-the-top caricatures of each candidate, people still confuse the candidate with the caricature. So they think any little sign--no matter how irrelevant--is proof the caricature is true.

On the Hillary side, I have fought this urge inside myself. I think, in her own way, she loves America and wanted to be a good president. If I go with the caricature, I will think she is a mob boss or James Bond villain something. Granted, she's corrupt and would have wrecked this country through the Supreme Court due to her ideology, but she also not a man-eating monster. (That Spirit Cooking stuff was way weird, though. :) )

I think she's a typical back-stabbing politician who does some bad things, believes a lot of her own bullshit, sometimes has a good heart and does some good things. (Spiritually, the Netflix show, "House of Cards," nails the Clintons. The parallels are fantastic once you start looking.)

Trump is not the caricature the press made him out to be. He is miles ahead of the Bushes in moral quality and true leadership. Don't take my word for it, though. My humble suggestion is for you to keep your antenna up to see how his deeds align with his words in the end as his term of office unfolds.

Michael

This was his first reversal. Its one of a multitude of ideas for which there will be ample opportunity to find how his words line up with his actions.

Its difficult to put stock in an invitation being extend to the Clintons when 350 people were invited. You know? That shows depth of friendship? I invited 75 and I couldnt have told my wife how they were related to me. What he said about healing is a perfectly polished public way of disclosing a compassionate side.

And you are judging Bush after the fact, while Trump has not yet acted. I simply judged people on the value of their words. After winning she becomes less a political enemy, a 70 yr old has been, and his agent will take care of the matter, plain and simple.

I judged him, perhaps, too harshly in retrospect. When I say Im going to do something, Ive already determined that I can and aside from the actual carrying through what I say publicly is what I do. Bad form to view politics that way.

 As I said there are enough loopholes to provide cover. But a word is a bond. My mistake was actually believing him. I do think it undermines his veracity to a small extent. I will agree that Clinton is toast and not worthy of Trumps future examination although her criminal corruptness has to be addressed for what it is. Thats further down from his pay grade now. 

Your suggestion is to see if he keeps his word. And you say well yes, he does, he will, except when reality gets in the way. There will be an attachment of blame owing to him, his presidency and of course the body politic. Im exciting about the prospect of a successful 100 day plan but then again they are just words until acted upon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turkeyfoot wrote: I’m exciting about the prospect of a successful 100 day plan but then again they are just words until acted upon. end quote 

I think Trump will hit the ground running. It’s like the Dad who promises his kid a bike for Christmas. Unless an asteroid strikes, he is going to buy that bike. It’s guaranteed, unless utter catastrophe occurs, as much as I am sure about my own words at this moment.

Rush is thinking and speculating on the air today (and no he won‘t ask Kellyanne or Him, the magnificent in person, though he could) what is Kellyanne Conway doing? Is she doing Trump’s bidding for the most part, talking about Mitt? She and Trump are thinking, “No way to Romney.” Mitt did not support Trump. To the contrary he actively opposed Trump. He did not even vote for Trump. Trump is dangling a carrot in front of Romney but then he will yank it away. Romney and Rudy’s chances have imploded. It would be a huge disappointment to Trump’s voter BASE if he supported Romney.

So did Kellyanne go rogue? Or, is she simply doing Trump’’s business? Rush thinks you can throw out typical insider, political machinations.

I am thinking we need someone with real international experience at State and a certain general who's name no one can spell, is well versed in the middle east.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2016 at 0:18 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

The Laffer Curve redux?  

Please read the block quote below before the next two paragraphs. I tried to but them in reverse order, but couldn't get it to work.

Note that for (1) and (2) the highest tax rate was on the right side of the Laffer Curve shown here. That was not the case for (3) and (4). It is also not the case now. Both (3) and (4) increased income tax revenues some, but far less than (1) and (2). Also, an X% increase in federal income tax revenues implies a much smaller percent increase in federal government revenues, since federal income tax revenues are only a little over half of total federal government revenues. 

On the other hand, there is the matter of American companies with profits kept oversees. A Fortune article puts the amount at $2.6 trillion. Repatriation with a 10% tax could put up to $260 billion in the US Treasury. That's quite significant compared to recent and projected deficits of about $500 billion. Of course, it would not be recurring.

Quote

(1) The Tax Cuts of the 1920s

By the end of World War I, the top rate stood at 77 percent. 

As a result of the Mellon tax cuts, federal government revenues derived from personal income taxes rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1.164 billion in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

(2) The Kennedy Tax Cuts

Franklin Roosevelt had pushed marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent.   [T]he top tax rate, for example, was slashed from 91 percent to 70 percent.

As a result of Kennedy's tax cuts, the federal government's tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

(3) The Reagan Tax Cuts

The cornerstone of [Reagan's] economic policy was a 25-percent across-the-board tax cut, enacted in 1981.

(4) The Bush Tax Cuts

In 2001 the George W. Bush administration passed income-tax cuts that reduced individual tax rates by roughly 7.4 percent on the low end of the income spectrum, and by 9.3 percent on the high end. Two years later, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent and 10 percent (depending on income) to 15 percent and 5 percent, respectively. 

Link. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2016 at 1:16 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

....

The rest is blah blah blah to try to express that.

....

bait and switch with terms like "revenue neutral."

.....

as a clean windowpane about that.

......

mocking

....

I will not hold my breath waiting for a retraction when his plans work out.

I see you have nothing better to say than blah, blah, blah. Over 200 words of bloviation. Re your alleging a bait and switch, you really botched that. Trump people did what looks like a switcheroo with revenue neutral and deficit neutral, not me. 

I don't expect a retraction/public admission from MSK when reality proves me correct -- with no material change in government accounting practice -- and him wrong.

MSK is making fine examples of evaluating before identifying for OL readers. That is as clear as a clean windowpane. His evaluation of my using a caricature of Donald Trump as a pied piper is that it is only to mock Trump. Not so. In the legend of The Pied Piper of Hamelin, the pied piper was a rat-catcher hired by the people of Hamelin to lure rats away from Hamelin with his magic pipe. My first thought of Trump as a pied piper was to rid Washington, D.C. of some "rats" (politicians and other politically influential people). That is wishing, not mocking.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, merjet said:

I see you have nothing better to say than blah, blah, blah.

Merlin,

Actually I did.

I said Trump and his economic board are the ones with power, not you. (You may think I'm stupid about macro-economics, but I don't see how you can call his economic advisors stupid.)

btw - Did I say he has power, not you?

:evil: 

So we shall see how his ideas work--in reality, not in one-upmanship word game interactions.

(pssssst news flash - Trump does identify then evaluate as his main plan. That's why the buildings he builds don't fall down. :)

The only way I can know if your ideas work so far is to look at the cartoons you post so you can mock Trump and those who agree with him.

The rest, from what I've seen, is bait-and-switch rationalizations, like gotcha word games and constantly saying Trump means one thing when he clearly means another. And standard denials. In other words, word games.

The cartoons are fun, though...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2016 at 10:18 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Mike Pompeo CIA director.

Not badass...

Wait and see...

Michael

A bad ass wants a return to the good old days prior to Snowden. 3 hops may turn into a trifecta of executive power.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-29/fbi-and-nsa-poised-to-gain-new-surveillance-powers-under-trump

The fights expected to play out -- in Senate confirmation hearings and through executive action, legislation and litigation -- also will set up an early test of Trump’s relationship with Silicon Valley giants including Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google. Trump signaled as much during his presidential campaign, when he urged a consumer boycott of Apple for refusing to help the FBI hack into a terrorist’s encrypted iPhone."

“What’s needed is a fundamental upgrade to America’s surveillance capabilities,” Pompeo and a co-author wrote in a Wall Street Journal commentary in January. “Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed.”  

Pompeo and Sessions want to repeal a 2015 law that prohibits the FBI and NSA from collecting bulk phone records -- “metadata” such as numbers called and dates and times -- on Americans who aren’t suspected of wrongdoing.

Sessions has opposed restraints on NSA surveillance and said in June that he supported legislation to expand the types of internet data the FBI can intercept without warrants.

"Congress should pass a law re-establishing collection of all metadata, and combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database," Pompeo wrote.

James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has said he also wants to renew a debate early next year about whether Apple and other companies can resist court warrants seeking to unlock encrypted communications. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Donald of old is baaaaaaaack!

 

 

:)

The press is going apeshit, too.

No matter how many times people see this pattern with Trump, they never learn. 

Pssssssssssssst... Hey you... you of the outraged class... gather in close... I have a secret for you...

Trump's opening bid is never what he really wants.

Just read the friggin' book (The Art of the Deal) and look at what he's been doing this entire election.

:)

I have never seen a person so competently and quickly move the Overton Window from notches the ruling class (especially the left) put there as acceptable public discourse through years and years of covert indoctrination.

The process is simple:

1. People in general accept that they are prohibited from talking about something or complaining about it in public while bad actors make public nuisances out of themselves abusing the prohibited topic. (Or oppressive laws get passed.) Most people don't like it, but they stay quiet.

2. Should a person speak out against the prohibition (PC language, SJW mini-cause, etc.), the press en masse brands that person as a bigot, racist, misogynist, etc. Boycotts of their businesses are organized, etc.

3. Trump makes a Tweet that aggressively flies in the face of the prohibition and, also, reflects what the bullied public thinks.

4. The press makes a shitstorm.

5. Trump releases a few gotchas and half-assed explanations (half-assed on purpose, I might add).

6. There is a public backlash against the shitstorm from Trump supporters and, then, others. 

7. The new normal for the press eventually settles and the previously forbidden topic starts being discussed in public from differing points of view, not just one--as a legitimate topic and without the previous massive intimidation branding effort. 

This is not just moving the Overton Window. This is lurching it in a sudden jerk a few notches at a time.

:) 

I expect to see the flag-burning business to die out after a while and not become a fad. And, who knows? Following the example, maybe NFL audience stats will start to improve once they get back to football...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

...

I said Trump and his economic board are the ones with power, not you.

....

btw - Did I say he has power, not you?

....

I don't see how you can call his economic advisors stupid.

....

[you] constantly saying Trump means one thing when he clearly means another. And standard denials. In other words, word games.

....

About the power, oh my! You snapped me back to reality with your brilliance! :D

Where did I say his economic advisers are stupid? Au contraire, they are probably smart enough to conceive and try some "creative accounting"  that doesn't meet the clear, standard meaning of deficit-neutral. Similar things have been done before. Past Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich "balanced" the state budget by skipping contributions of actuarially-determined costs to state employees' and employees of state schools' pension plans (link). Did you know that the Johnson administration "privatized" Fannie Mae in 1968 to get Fannie Mae's costs off the federal government's budget? You can read about it in Hidden in Plain Sight, p. 106-7. 

The Trump webpage page that I linked - which may not be Trump's own words, but it is his domain -- said his infrastructure plan is deficit-neutral twice. "Deficit-neutral" was not footnoted or otherwise explained. I took it literally, not to mean something much different. Was it a case where he clearly meant something else? If so, please tell us what that is, expert Trump mind-reader.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, merjet said:

Where did I say his economic advisers are stupid? Au contraire, they are probably smart enough to conceive and try some "creative accounting"  that doesn't meet the clear, standard meaning of deficit-neutral.

Merlin,

Well that's clever. Instead of saying Trump's economic advisors are on board with their boss, you tell me they are sleazy and will probably will do sleaze to cover their boss's stupidity (to kiss his ass)--that they are not stupid, but morally corrupt instead, that they are not motivated by doing the right thing to the best of their ability, but instead, by the urge to keep their boss from being embarrassed. You're saying this about Heritage Foundation folks and similar.

That's a hell of an assumption.

:)

3 hours ago, merjet said:

The Trump webpage page that I linked - which may not be Trump's own words, but it is his domain -- said his infrastructure plan is deficit-neutral twice. "Deficit-neutral" was not footnoted or otherwise explained. I took it literally, not to mean something much different. Was it a case where he clearly meant something else? If so, please tell us what that is, expert Trump mind-reader.

It's kind of duh.

It means the costs of his programs will not be added to the deficit, but will be paid for as we go along. 

It's based on the principle of when you make more money, you can buy more. If you don't make more money, you hold back on buying until you do.

This is the contrary of the principle of piling on debt and "kicking the can down the road" that President Obama and his predecessors have been using to eventually bankrupt America if it doesn't stop.

I don't need advanced math to see that. It seems like only people with advanced math skills can't see it.

:)

For some reason you don't think America will make more money. Trump does and so do I. And, since you don't believe it, I invite you to watch what happens, but, as Mike Pence is saying right now, buckle up, first. It's going to be a hell of a ride.

Trump isn't in office yet, but here is an indication of what's to come (from NYT):

Trump to Announce Carrier Plant Will Keep Jobs in U.S.

Now, please explain to dumb ole me how this doesn't mean anything because, according to advanced math and macro-economics, unemployed people here and companies producing stuff in other countries actually spreads wealth around in America.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2016 at 3:59 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The Donald of old is baaaaaaaack!

 

 

 

 

:)

The press is going apeshit, too.

No matter how many times people see this pattern with Trump, they never learn. 

Pssssssssssssst... Hey you... you of the outraged class... gather in close... I have a secret for you...

Trump's opening bid is never what he really wants.

Just read the friggin' book (The Art of the Deal) and look at what he's been doing this entire election.

:)

I have never seen a person so competently and quickly move the Overton Window from notches the ruling class (especially the left) put there as acceptable public discourse through years and years of covert indoctrination.

The process is simple:

1. People in general accept that they are prohibited from talking about something or complaining about it in public while bad actors make public nuisances out of themselves abusing the prohibited topic. (Or oppressive laws get passed.) Most people don't like it, but they stay quiet.

2. Should a person speak out against the prohibition (PC language, SJW mini-cause, etc.), the press en masse brands that person as a bigot, racist, misogynist, etc. Boycotts of their businesses are organized, etc.

3. Trump makes a Tweet that aggressively flies in the face of the prohibition and, also, reflects what the bullied public thinks.

4. The press makes a shitstorm.

5. Trump releases a few gotchas and half-assed explanations (half-assed on purpose, I might add).

6. There is a public backlash against the shitstorm from Trump supporters and, then, others. 

7. The new normal for the press eventually settles and the previously forbidden topic starts being discussed in public from differing points of view, not just one--as a legitimate topic and without the previous massive intimidation branding effort. 

This is not just moving the Overton Window. This is lurching it in a sudden jerk a few notches at a time.

:) 

I expect to see the flag-burning business to die out after a while and not become a fad. And, who knows? Following the example, maybe NFL audience stats will start to improve once they get back to football...

Michael

Or, perhaps, Trump forgot about the First Amendment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now