192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 05:32 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
This is why I've always hated to see a political party adopting a tax cutting platform as a vote-getting mechanism; it's basically a bribe.

No more so than "offering social programs to the masses" is a bribe.


hightor wrote:
We see the need for massive public works spending (even before climate concerns emerged). We know that medical expenses will be rising as our society ages and Medicare will need supplementary funding.

Republicans disagree on the need for social spending.

I side with the Democrats on this question (which is a large part of the reason why I still call myself a Democrat), but I think it's OK for Republicans to disagree with me.


hightor wrote:
"Borrow and spend" is the problem, and the politicians who promote unfunded programs and increase spending while cutting revenue are totally, and shamefully, irresponsible.

True. That is a problem. But I'm not aware of an easy solution. Maybe better voter education on the issue. But good luck with that.

Perhaps a VAT tax like the Europeans have might help to balance the budget.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  -1  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 05:55 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
"Tax and spend" isn't evil — it's how our system is supposed to work. "Borrow and spend" is the problem, and the politicians who promote unfunded programs and increase spending while cutting revenue are totally, and shamefully, irresponsible.


Simplistic, and puerile.

The rest of the planet became aware of the US ponzi scheme during the bailouts after the orchestrated GFC in 2007-8.

Major trading partners began refusing US fed "notes", realising they're just paper waivers, and not worth a damn down the track.

It's why the fed has been buying and selling (at a loss) their own US bonds. Not that they care, because the perps will all be dead by the time those bonds mature.



georgeob1
 
  0  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 06:11 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

It has more to do with the general air of encouragement and permissiveness; the psychological impact shouldn't be discounted.
I've been CEO of several companies and served on the Boards of others. I can assure you there is little psychology associated with legal compliance issues in corporate governance.
hightor wrote:

This is why I've always hated to see a political party adopting a tax cutting platform as a vote-getting mechanism; it's basically a bribe.
I believe that rather sweeping and categorical statement stands in clear contradiction with the available facts. The clear motivation in Trump's Tax reform, trade, and regulatory actions has been the stimulation of the U.S. economy for everyone dependent on it. The results have been increased investment in the economy; significantly increased employment and the recently begun rising wage levels that follow; rising corporate earnings and a fast rising stock market, -- all of which have benefitted workers, investors and all participants in private and public pension funds. I suppose you could consider that a bribe but it is one that benefits nearly all citizens in the country.

hightor wrote:

I think it would have made more sense to simply employ a mechanism to lower tax rates during times of low economic growth and dial the same taxes back up when the economy is booming. Making tax cuts "permanent" is basically leaving the government helpless in the face of increasing levels of public debt because no political party will be able to increase tax rates or levy new taxes in the future unless they are sold as being "revenue neutral".
There's nothing "permanent " about the Trump tax cuts. They, like all others that have preceded them, can be amended or removed by subsequent legislative action. I'm not aware of any recent Democrat Administration that has significantly reduced or even frozen the national debt. I seriously doubt the ability of our government to either foresee or act in a timely way to enact the things you propose. Finally and most importantly, your proposal, like most "progressive" efforts to optimize life for all, ignores the resulting side effects, in this case most prominently the inevitable and usually self-serving reactions that people everywhere take to game such a system.
hightor wrote:

"Tax and spend" isn't evil — it's how our system is supposed to work. "Borrow and spend" is the problem, and the politicians who promote unfunded programs and increase spending while cutting revenue are totally, and shamefully, irresponsible.

Both parties add to our debt regularly. Increasing GDP raises the threshold at which debt becomes an issue, and Trump has certainly done that in reversing a previously sclerotic recovery from a deep recession, and creating a remarkably stable (so far) booming economy.
Current Democrat candidates promise to send Federal spending through the roof, and none so far have made a serious effort to explain how they would pay for it.
coldjoint
 
  1  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 06:35 pm
Quote:
Trump has certainly done that in reversing a previously sclerotic recovery from a deep recession, and creating a remarkably stable (so far) booming economy.

That is what America wants. Are people in control that out of touch? Let him do his job. Politicians could learn from Trump.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 07:12 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I can assure you there is little psychology associated with legal compliance issues in corporate governance.

I'm sure you're right. But that's not what I'm talking about. There's often a national mood, a boom psychology in play during long periods of growth just as there's a malaise which can set in when the economy sours. Trump's very strong pro-business stand means that corporations can concentrate on growth and investors will see opportunity and be willing to take risks. I happen to think it's hucksterism but I don't dispute that it can bring temporary benefits to the politicians in power at the time.
Quote:
There's nothing "permanent " about the Trump tax cuts.

This is what I said:
I wrote:
Making tax cuts "permanent" is basically leaving the government helpless in the face of increasing levels of public debt because no political party will be able to increase tax rates or levy new taxes in the future unless they are sold as being "revenue neutral".

See the quotation marks around "permanent"? In the current political climate any tax cut is as good as permanent.
Quote:
I'm not aware of any recent Democrat (sic) Administration that has significantly reduced or even frozen the national debt.

I never made such a claim. Why are you bringing this up?
Quote:
Current Democrat candidates promise to send Federal spending through the roof, and none so far have made a serious effort to explain how they would pay for it.

Yes, I'm aware of this. That's the whole point of my post. No one's doing anything to address future financial problems which are certain to negatively impact the economy as we know it.
hightor
 
  3  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 07:13 pm
@Builder,
Quote:
...US ponzi scheme...

Borrow and spend is the culprit.

Tax and spend means that costs are borne in the present through the reliable collection of broad-based taxes. That's decidedly not a Ponzi scheme because expenditures funded by an incoming stream of revenue.

Quote:
The rest of the planet became aware...

case in point...
Quote:
Major trading partners began refusing US fed "notes"...

another case in point...
Quote:

It's why the fed has been buying and selling (at a loss) their own US bonds.

yet another...

Irresponsible borrowing to cover spending on supposedly "necessary" stuff the politicians are too chicken-****-scared to ask the ignorant public to pay for! That's the Ponzi scheme.
oralloy
 
  0  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 07:26 pm
@hightor,
Goodness. Are you, me, and Builder all agreeing on something?
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  0  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 08:08 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
Borrow and spend is the culprit.


The fed doesn't borrow, though. They create cash from nothing.

The US economy is supported by a belief system no more (nor less) realistic than Christianity or Islam.

Trade is what keeps this system afloat, and trade in US notes for oil, is crucial to the ponzi scheme.

Lash
 
  1  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 08:12 pm
@Builder,
This is no **** people. It’s why we **** around with Arabs who live on top of ‘our money’.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 09:26 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
I can assure you there is little psychology associated with legal compliance issues in corporate governance.

I'm sure you're right. But that's not what I'm talking about. There's often a national mood, a boom psychology in play during long periods of growth just as there's a malaise which can set in when the economy sours. Trump's very strong pro-business stand means that corporations can concentrate on growth and investors will see opportunity and be willing to take risks. I happen to think it's hucksterism but I don't dispute that it can bring temporary benefits to the politicians in power at the time.


Is there some feasible economic state that you prefer to an extended period of economic growth ? Risk-taking is the creative energy of capitalism. It is what spurs technological and design innovation, and improved goods and services for people. Unfortunately no one has figured out how to run an economy that is entirely free of the cyclic excesses to which you are referring. Even socialist economies are subject to these variations, though they are far smaller than those in capitalist economies, and also somewhat masked by the steady, monotone decline and sclerosis that infests socialist economies.

You may not like capitalist corporations, but in the current era they provide much better pay and employee benefits and working conditions than do socialist systems, It wasn't always this way: a century ago early capitalist industrial systems were very exploitive. Early labor unions largely fixed that over a period of about forty years. Now working conditions and employee rights are codified in our laws, and unions have, as a result, faded from the private economy. Most remaining unions serve Government employees and they are highly political in their operations. Very likely we will see more such cycles ahead, though it is hard to know now just what they will entail.

In general I am inclined to agree with your desire for more perfect political and economic systems for our society. However life has taught me that human nature is endlessly complex and full of contradictions. One result is there are no permanently optimal systems for human governance - none last longer than it takes for people of all classes and dispositions, acting in their self-interest, to co opt and game them. As a public with democratic traditions, we must repeatedly learn and relearn the same lessons in a somewhat cyclic way. Socialists and contemporary progressives appear to believe that the "working class" can be tamed and induced to accept over time a rational system of uniform distribution of goods and benefits. This, of course is an illusion: human ambition, creativity, avarice and greed continuously create disruptive forces which corrupt and enervate the regime, destroy the sources of the wealth it feeds on, resulting in collapse or revolution. Remember the samidzat joke from the Soviet era; "we pretend to work … and they pretend to pay us."

Life and human nature are far more complex, dynamic and full of contradictions than our political and economic theories suppose (or allow).
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  2  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 09:45 pm
https://www.greaterseattleonthecheap.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Book-cover-A-Very-Stable-Genius-by-Leonnig-and-Rucker.jpg

A Meticulous Account of Trump’s Tenure Reads Like a Comic Horror Story
By Dwight Garner
Jan. 16, 2020


The essence of irony, Henry Fowler wrote in “A Dictionary of Modern English Usage,” is that it “postulates a double audience” — one that’s in on the joke, and another that isn’t. The title of Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig’s new book, “A Very Stable Genius,” is thus savvy marketing. It’s possible to imagine both Donald J. Trump’s detractors and his admirers eagerly grasping a copy.

The admirers will not make it past the table of contents. Among the chapter titles: “Unhinged,” “Shocking the Conscience,” “Paranoia and Pandemonium” and “Scare-a-Thon.” This verbiage makes Rucker and Leonnig’s book sound like one more enraged polemic. It isn’t. They’re meticulous journalists, and this taut and terrifying book is among the most closely observed accounts of Donald J. Trump’s shambolic tenure in office to date.

Rucker is The Washington Post’s White House bureau chief; Leonnig is a national investigative reporter for the newspaper. Both have won Pulitzer Prizes. Their newspaper’s ominous, love-it-or-hate-it motto is “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” “A Very Stable Genius” flicks the lights on from its first pages.

Rucker and Leonnig have composed their book, they write, out of a desire to step out of the churning news cycle and “assess the reverberations” of Trump’s presidency. The result is a chronological account of the past three years in Washington, based on interviews with more than 200 sources.

It reads like a horror story, an almost comic immorality tale. It’s as if the president, as patient zero, had bitten an aide and slowly, bite by bite, an entire nation had lost its wits and its compass.

The result of Rucker and Leonnig’s hard work is a book that runs low to the ground; it only rarely pauses for sweeping, drone-level vistas and injections of historical perspective. This is not Garry Wills or Joan Didion. They do break news, some large and some small.

An example of large news: They report that in the spring of 2017, Trump implored Rex Tillerson, then secretary of state, to help him jettison the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. “It’s just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas,” Trump whines to a group of aides. Nearly every line from Trump, in “A Very Stable Genius,” is this venal.

Another example: While visiting Pearl Harbor, according to John F. Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff, Trump seemed to have no idea what had actually happened there. Throughout he is misinformed and confused while at the same time utterly certain of himself.

An example of small but nonetheless piquant news: Administration lawyers came up with a nickname for Matthew Whitaker, the former acting attorney general. They called him Mongo, after the illiterate galoot played by Alex Karras in the Mel Brooks movie “Blazing Saddles.”

Rucker and Leonnig are adept at scene-setting, at subtly thickening the historical record. More than a few of these scenes feature Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, known to nearly all in the White House as “the kids.” They’re viewed as in over their heads and possessed of unfailingly defective judgment.

There’s a brutal scene early on, during the initial staffing of Trump’s White House, concerning Michael Flynn, the president’s first national security adviser. Despite warnings about Flynn — the authors describe his “Islamophobic rhetoric, coziness with Russia and other foreign adversaries and a reliance on flimsy facts and dubious assertions” — Trump’s team made it clear he could have any job he wanted in the administration.

The authors write: “‘Oh, General Flynn, how loyal you’ve been to my father,’ Ivanka said in her distinctive breathy voice, adding something to the effect of ‘What do you want to do?’”

Before Trump had met with NATO allies, he kept glancing at Reince Priebus and pleading in front of others, in fanboy tones, “When can I meet with Putin? Can I meet with him before the inaugural ceremony?”

The authors build several stirring scenes around Tillerson’s experiences as secretary of state, and the disturbing behavior he witnessed. They provide the fullest picture to date of a now notorious July 2017 meeting in “the Tank” of the Pentagon during which military leaders and Trump’s national security team, alarmed by “gaping holes in the president’s knowledge of history and the alliances forged in the wake of World War II,” tried to give him a gentle lesson on American power.

The meeting ended after Trump exploded, saying, among other things, “You’re all losers, you don’t know how to win anymore,” and “You’re a bunch of dopes and babies.”

At a later meeting in the White House Situation Room, Trump began speaking, not for the first time, about his desire to make a profit from the deployment of American soldiers. Tillerson had finally had enough. The authors describe the moment. The secretary of state stood, facing away from the president and toward officers and aides in the room.

“I’ve never put on a uniform, but I know this,” the authors quote Tillerson saying. “Every person who has put on a uniform, the people in this room, they don’t do it to make a buck. They did it for their country, to protect us. I want everyone to be clear about how much we as a country value their service.”

Trump grew red in the face, but saved his fire for later. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff later called Tillerson, his voice unsteady with emotion, to thank him. There aren’t a lot of moments in “A Very Stable Genius” in which people do the right instead of the expedient thing. Some of these scenes may make the reader unsteady with emotion as well.

There’s a lot more here, amid the peeling wallpaper of the American experiment. Trump considered awarding himself the Medal of Freedom. He informed the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, wrongly: “It’s not like you’ve got China on your border.” Photographs emerged of Colbie Holderness, one of the former White House staff secretary Rob Porter’s ex-wives, with a black eye. She said Porter gave it to her. Trump had another explanation. The authors write: “Maybe, Trump said, Holderness purposefully ran into a refrigerator to give herself bruises and try to get money out of Porter?”

There are grainy details of a physical altercation between Kelly and Corey Lewandowski. There is the belittling, by nearly everyone, of the acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney (“He’ll take whatever I offer him”; “Mick just wants to be liked.”). There is commentary about Robert Mueller’s failure to press the president for a face-to-face interview during his investigation. There are descriptions of Mike Pence as “a wax museum guy,” able to blithely absorb any amount of insanity without comment.

In his memoir “A Good Life: Newspapering and Other Adventures,” the Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wrote that Richard Nixon’s press secretary, Ron Ziegler, was “a small-bore man, over his head, and riding a bad horse.”

These words apply, one thinks while reading Rucker and Leonnig’s more than competent book, to nearly every adviser and staffer now in Trump’s orbit. The authors write: “The ineptitude came from the very top.”


Builder
 
  -1  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 10:34 pm
@coluber2001,
Quote:
There’s a lot more here, amid the peeling wallpaper of the American experiment.


Here's what an Australian took to be the most apt sentence in your tome of a post.

While permitting career congressmen (and women) who have zero real-life experience living in the US of A as a wage and salary earner, to live out their days on easy street, and then those same career hacks going through a revolving door into lobbying (exchanging bribes for favors) with their old colleagues, you're never likely to end up with a fair and just system, despite all the rhetoric and bluff and bluster.

More and more European nations, who are not party to the already corrupted EU, are quietly distancing themselves from the western system of governance, in favor of a more people-focused forward-looking existence.

I don't expect anyone in the US of A to care about this change, but it is heartening to know that change is afoot.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 11:03 pm
@Builder,
Builder wrote:
The fed doesn't borrow, though. They create cash from nothing.

The US Treasury borrows.


Builder wrote:
The US economy is supported by a belief system no more (nor less) realistic than Christianity or Islam.
Trade is what keeps this system afloat, and trade in US notes for oil, is crucial to the ponzi scheme.

Actually oil is not at all relevant to our currency.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 11:04 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
This is no **** people. It's why we **** around with Arabs who live on top of 'our money'.

That is incorrect. The reason why we worry about oil is because we need oil to drive our cars.

As soon as we are able to completely transition to another source of fuel we'll stop supporting Arab governments, and our currency will not face any repercussions when we do so.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  -1  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 11:20 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Actually oil is not at all relevant to our currency.


This video looks like what you're seeking. An historical look at the "petrodollar", and why it's now the global economic hegemony.



Quote:
The US Treasury borrows.


From whom?
oralloy
 
  -3  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 11:34 pm
@Builder,
Builder wrote:
This video looks like what you're seeking.

I'm not seeking anything.


Builder wrote:
An historical look at the "petrodollar", and why it's now the global economic hegemony.

The video isn't true. There is no such thing as a petrodollar.


Builder wrote:
From whom?

From whoever wants to buy a treasury bond.
Builder
 
  -1  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 11:46 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
I'm not seeking anything.


Ignorance truly can be bliss.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 11:47 pm
@Builder,
No ignorance. I am well aware of the reality that there is no such thing as a petrodollar.
Builder
 
  -1  
Sun 19 Jan, 2020 12:39 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
I am well aware of the reality that there is no such thing as a petrodollar.


Then you might have a premise for how the US currency currently exists, considering the fact that it doesn't have a legitimate value, other than oil sales and purchases. Did you watch the video?

Quote:
From whoever wants to buy a treasury bond.


Hmmm, so you're also not aware that the US federal reserve is currently buying their own treasury bonds at a loss?

I won't bother linking you up. seeing as how you've already reached your own conclusions on this topic.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Sun 19 Jan, 2020 12:45 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:
Then you might have a premise for how the US currency currently exists,

It's printed by the US government.


Builder wrote:
considering the fact that it doesn't have a legitimate value, other than oil sales and purchases.

The dollar is used for all sorts of legitimate purchases.


Builder wrote:
Did you watch the video?

No.


Builder wrote:
Hmmm, so you're also not aware that the US federal reserve is currently buying their own treasury bonds at a loss?

No. But I'm also not denying it.


Builder wrote:
I won't bother linking you up. seeing as how you've already reached your own conclusions on this topic.

If it's true, what does it matter?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.45 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 07:20:00