Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
Re: What has Trump done right so far? | |
---|---|
by PeterZ » Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:23 pm | |
PeterZ
Posts: 6432
|
Let's add a great speech! I am not pleased with the proposed spending, but can live with it. The rest was great.
|
Top |
Re: What has Trump done right so far? | |
---|---|
by gcomeau » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:23 am | |
gcomeau
Posts: 2747
|
If by "great" you mean "effective job stimulus keeping fact checkers employed". But if lies that make you happy is what you prefer over reality... yeah... great speech I suppose. |
Top |
Re: What has Trump done right so far? | |
---|---|
by Annachie » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:33 am | |
Annachie
Posts: 3099
|
That reply made no sense. Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ still not dead. |
Top |
Re: What has Trump done right so far? | |
---|---|
by Eyal » Wed Mar 01, 2017 3:01 am | |
Eyal
Posts: 334
|
Except that the US global military network serves US interests first of all. Your bases in Europe, for instance make projecting power into the Middle East much easier.
If you enjoy being lied to, sure |
Top |
Re: What has Trump done right so far? | |
---|---|
by PeterZ » Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:05 am | |
PeterZ
Posts: 6432
|
POVs tell the tale. |
Top |
Re: What has Trump done right so far? | |
---|---|
by gcomeau » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:26 pm | |
gcomeau
Posts: 2747
|
Objective falsehoods are not subject to POVs. Something you appear to have no difficulty understanding until we start talking about Trump. |
Top |
Re: What has Trump done right so far? | |
---|---|
by PeterZ » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:46 pm | |
PeterZ
Posts: 6432
|
The nature of the falsehoods from the President and the nature of how information is shaded by the press are subject to POVs. As with the entire Clinton's veracity question, I believe she spoke to mislead. The media also speaks to mislead or directly influence to a desired conclusion. Mika Brzezinski said it best. http://conservativefiringline.com/msnbcs-mika-brzezinski-medias-job-control-exactly-people-think/ Arguing that politicians and the media shade the truth is rather pointless. They do. The POVs of the listener/viewer will determine which forms of untruth upsets us most. I told you from the beginning I voted for the man knowing full well he has some personality issues that trouble me. So did Clinton. There are other issues I understand completely even if many in the media have issues them. Further, there are many things he says that's trike me as purely tactical comments made to control the media narrative. While these may or may not be factually accurate, they are effective at controlling what is being discussed. So, while I understand the difference between accurate facts and distortions, facts are being distorted in many different ways every politician and media outlet. Filtering for the various distortions is necessary. Filtering is also a function of POV. Which brings us back to my comment, POV tells the tale. |
Top |
Re: What has Trump done right so far? | |
---|---|
by CRC » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:18 pm | |
CRC
Posts: 131
|
Not "unproductive" in the literal sense. "Overhead" is anything but "non-productive" as far as process goes. What overhead does not do is provide a product or service that generates a separate revenue stream. Now granted, there are always exceptions. I equate "overhead" to the "cost of doing business" - and I think the 14% of all working people as the "cost of doing business" is excessive. And that 14% is just a personnel count. the more accurate count would be by costs. Some studies have argued that when comparing government delivered services to private delivered services (charities), the costs of government delivered services can range from 25 to 35% of the tax dollars actually delivered compared to 60 to 90% of the donated monies actually delivered. It basically points to the "costs of doing business" by using government employees as excessive. I can't comment on your examples. I can only comment on my personal experience in the corporate world and TEMPS (outsourcing) saves a LOT of money. Small businesses can operate with multipliers as low as 1.3 to 2.5, but large businesses typically range in the 3 to 5 regime. The ones in the 3-5 regime benefit tremendously from TEMP outsourcing as it saves them on the order of 1.5x to 2x on the cost of the labor, not to mention the reduction in the cost of overhead associated with that labor. |
Top |
Re: What has Trump done right so far? | |
---|---|
by CRC » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:26 pm | |
CRC
Posts: 131
|
quote]
That reply made no sense. Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk[/quote] Let me clarify. Yes, Trump had made those comments to completely do away with Dodd-Frank. But he is President, not king. Any changes to Dodd-Frank existing regulations are subject to the regulatory process. And any changes to Dodd-Frank statutes requires a new law. Unless of course, he pulls an Obama and directs the DoJ and IRS to 'not enforce certain provisions that he doesn't like'. Or he issues "guidance" memos directing enforcement elsewhere. Just as Reid screwed over the Dems with the nuclear option in the last Congress, Obama, through the threat of the use of 'that pen and phone' sure started a slippery slope didn't it? Unintended consequences, or what some call 'what goes around, comes around' or others call 'kharma', has a tendency to bite you in the rear when you least expect it. |
Top |
Re: What has Trump done right so far? | |
---|---|
by CRC » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:32 pm | |
CRC
Posts: 131
|
gcomeau: So is the scope and quantity of the material that warrants leaking. They go hand in hand.
You are trying to attribute to deep dark conspiracy that which is obviously attributable to gross incompetence and misconduct by the administration itself. CRC: And that dear friends is completely irresponsible and completely ignorant about the way classified information is, or is required to be handled via statute, and how intelligence activities actually work. No one, no one, even Hillary, is allowed to self-determine release of classified information. There are many, many logical and rationale reasons – and explaining them to the uninformable is simply a waste of time. I am not solely attributing to a deep dark conspiracy – sounds too much like the ‘right wing conspiracy’ of the 90’s – but I am looking at what is happening from an objective and informed point of view. And what I am seeing is far more than the normal political in-fighting between incoming staff members. I’ve never seen the intelligence communities get involved to this extent before. Pentagon, yes, Langley, no. gcomeau: That would be EOs. And only Trump can act on executive orders so that has nothing to do with any directed regulatory review by any other departments. CRC: “Rules” are not EO’s. “Rules” are overarching directives derived from a specific statute passed by Congress and specifically allowed by Congress in the Statute to be developed by the Executive branch. “Regulations” are derived from the rules and printed in the Federal Registry. The ACA was to have had 300+ rules and 22,000+ pages of regulations. Think of it as follows: Congress passes law, Cabinet secretaries write rules, lower level cabinet people write regulations. Trump wrote an EO requiring a review of all rules and regulations. You cited Obama review in 2011 as being sufficient. I pointed out that new rules and regulations have been generated since that review. Therefore a new review was not duplicative with the 2011 Obama review. gcomeau: It's busywork and PR. Obama only did it to make the GOP shut up about it. Trump is only doing it to throw red meat to the same people. CRC: That response doesn’t make sense. Obama did it in 2011 as lip service? That makes my point that the Trump review, IMHO is RIGHT. Trump is doing it because I believe he is serious. gcomeau: No, it makes it a pointless waste of time... something done to give the easy appearance of doing work without the actual work part. Which is the description of most of anything Trump does. All show, no substance. CRC: More deflection and spin. Remember Obama actually decided to NOT enforce certain laws, and to create new “laws” via memorandum of “guidance”. So you consider this pointless. I’ll remember this the next time you criticize Trump for NOT doing something that is pointless. gcomeau: Maybe you should try harder to keep track of who you are replying to. There was no "first" thing I said. I replied to you once before this. There was *one* thing I said... that thing right up there. And the one thing I said was not a non-sequitur. It was pointing out that his lobbying ban is *meaningless* when he is simply handing control of the government directly to the people who would normally be lobbying it. CRC: Sorry. The writing styles are so similar and the points are so similar it was hard to keep track. But it still is a non-sequitur. You are criticizing the EO, which is an extension of an existing ban, on FUTURE lobbying, by pointing out he is “giving” the government over to “people who would normally be lobbying it” in the PRESENT. (There are about 11,143 unique, registered active lobbyists in DC according to the Center for Responsive Politics.) So you think basically everyone in the Trump Executive branch is going to get everything they want over the next 4-8 years and have no need to lobby after that? That is your claim? That makes no sense – unless you now can read and write the language in Arrival. gcomeau: Again, try to keep track of who you are speaking to. (and also, if you wouldn't mind, use the quote tags. Your posts are unnecessarily hard to read) (And the map you are reading shows treaty boundaries that are under dispute. FYI.) CRC: Yes, the 1851 treaty and the reservation boundaries established by Congress are different. But if these treat boundaries are really in “dispute” then the suits brought to stop the pipelines should have been based on that argument, not the environmental one, or even both. Once a treaty boundary is realized by the court, then the supremacy clause allows for the complete and total stoppage of the pipeline from going across that boundary. So why haven’t the tribes sued on that basis? From the beginning? Something is not right here. There is something else going on as to why the tribes do not and did not sue based on the 1851 treaty boundaries – although keep in mind the 1851 treaty did allow for easements as wide a Conestoga wagon. So how wide is a buried pipe? gcomeau: In what fantasy world? Public sector employment has been lagging WAY down since the Great Recession. It should have been growing to fight unemployment and stimulate economic recovery but mostly the GOP controlled states slashed jobs right when the economy needed people working. Which is a REAL reason the recovery took so long, not financial regulations. CRC: Your referenced curve makes no sense when compared to the actual numbers in the OPM data or the Census bureau data. So GOP controlled states slashed jobs to meet budget requirements? What a novel idea! And this was the “REAL” reason the recovery took so long? I would love to see that analysis. Adding public sector employees to stimulate the economy, and paying for them with deficit spending is like kiting checks to yourself to increase your home budget – until you are caught and thrown in jail – which of course governments are typically not subject to. When the budget at home gets tight, you either cut spending or increase income by selling stuff off or getting another job or tapping your savings. While government spending is much more complex, it should be following the same principles. The fact that it isn’t is what partially caused the Trump backlash in the first place. |
Top |