20% Tax on Items from Mexico to pay for wall...

[Chu Gai]

All situations or scenarios can be looked at in at least two ways, KEW. As you've illustrated, on the face of it, there does appear to be a distinct coziness between the financial sector and Trump WRT the high level of appointments. Will they have the best interests of the country? Will they be able to create an environment where more people get jobs? Where incomes cease being largely stagnant? Where deadly crimes in cities stop their rise? Consider, that on the face of it, these individuals are quite well heeled. After all, numerous companies and even government agencies have events where hackers are challenged to discover weaknesses. And in the movie, Catch Me If You Can, what better person to get a handle on money fraud than a counterfeiter? Also bear in mind that prior to this, the wealthiest Americans have gotten far more wealthy where now it takes only eight of them to equal the aggregate wealth of half the world, or something like that.

I can only hope, because I don't know with any certainty, that the individual talents that these people have that were beneficial in their prior careers can just as well be marshaled in making our country more prosperous, safer, and all around better.

 

[herbu]

Perhaps there is a difference between people who made their fortune before becoming a politician, and those who got rich during or after?

 

[highfigh]

Why in this scenario is a misguided ideal of the wife controlling the decision instead of financial realities.

Ever hear the saying "If mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy"? Or, as a friend titled one of his songs, "Do you want to be happy, or do you want to be right?".

They split up- he couldn't convince her that it would be better to pay less and have a deductible and yet, she told him he needed to make more money.

Now THAT'S some kind of thinkin'!

 

[highfigh]

As if wealth among one side or the other among politicians is an issue. How wealthy have the Bush family become? They're all too corrupted by wealth, get the money out of elections is what is really needed.

ps edited due to something I neglected to fact check

Do people really want some schmuck who doesn't have two nickels to rub together as POTUS? No, we want people who are extremely successful or have governed before they ran for that office.

 

[highfigh]

...In the mean time, I wonder how many companies have decided to hold off on major plans in light of the unpredictable nature of Trumps decisions. Even if the were perfectly wonderful plans, the implementation is undermining them.
The lack of stability/predictability may be a good negotiation tactic for real estate deals, but when it is the president, it plunges companies and countries into a quagmire of uncertainty!

It's not only holding off, the insurance companies are pulling out of various markets because they would lose too much if they stayed.

 

[highfigh]

I not someone who would call people names. I believe we all have the best interest of the country at heart, but we buy into different sales jobs by politicians and the media.

I think Obamacare is effed-up, but after every presidential candidate (both R or D) starting with Ford has promised health care reform as part of their platform, it was good to see someone do something!

To the point of not glorifying the people who criticized Obamacare, I would ask why did they not come up with a better solution? That really would have been the way to take advantage of the "oh so obvious" flaws of Obamacare and totally embarrass Obama with a more effective and streamlined plan. Even (Bill) Clinton criticized that Obamacare was just another form of Insurance managed healthcare which will ultimately maintain the status quo of out of control medical costs in this country.

Is it just too late? Does big Pharma and other lobbying agencies have too much control of the government?

Trump is repealing the financial reforms that Obama put in place after the economy went south. I did not realize they were a bipartisan problem that qualified for Trump's priority! Do you think it has anything to do with the 6 advisers/cabinet members Trump has hired who either currently or previously worked for Goldman Sachs? Things are way too cozy between the president and financial sector.

For the record:
1. White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon,
2. Treasury Secretary nominee Steve Mnuchin,
3. National Economic Council Chairman-appointee Gary Cohn,
4. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman nominee Jay Clayton,
5. Senior Whitehouse Advisor Anthony Scaramucci,
6. Senior Counselor for Economic Initiatives Dina Habib Powell.

First, people want what THEY think is best, but one side is always telling us to spend our money on programs they want, regardless of our ability to spend more of our paycheck. Look at the protests/riots, Facebook, comments for almost every article on the Internet- one side can't even allow the other to have a differing opinion and if they do, they're constantly barraged by the others who call them names that are insulting to a degree that amaze me. Businesses are being damaged while customers are inside, cars are burned with people inside, people are beaten with clubs and shovels for no other reason than they support the other guy. People are out of control and they have lost the ability to discuss or even think about things without becoming violently angry. That doesn't sound like a working civilization, to me.

Yeah, Obama did that all by himself, right? And to add to the insult, even HE called it 'Obamacare'. How special. We need a health care plan, but definitely not this one and not one that penalizes people for not joining. People didn't pay a penalty before, other than causing hospitals to close when they lost too much money but using the IRS to collect it is BS! I'm sure someone has calculated the total cost of all health care procedures done annually, added the prescription drugs and used the SWAG method to come up with a number for over the counter drugs and for the number of people who do & don't go to a doctor for anything in a calendar year. Then, they decided that it costs each person $X/year for their care and saw that their model doesn't work.

If the IRS collects penalties from people who didn't buy in, where does this money go? I seriously doubt it goes to anything other than the general accounts- the chance that it goes toward health care or the insurance companies seems preposterous.

I have seen offers of a Physical exam for about $100- I don't know if they pad the total with prescriptions or if they're subsidized, but I think it would be a great idea to have a baseline for all people to be examined, so some kind of baseline can be established. In many cases, I'm sure some disease or condition will be found that's causing problems for the people, but they either ignored it, self-medicated or avoided doing anything our of fear/lack of ability to pay. Yes, it's a huge undertaking, but there's nothing fair about Obamacare and as much as I agree with "Nobody said life it fair", forcing healthy people to pay for the continuous bad diet and health habits of others is wrong. They have talked about some kind of 'Sin Tax' for cigarettes, booze, etc but if the government gets it greasy hands on it, it's gone.

I do think lobbyists are too powerful, but the other side of that coin can't be ignored- politicians are too greedy.

Obama's cabinet wasn't without its share of turds and Hillary's cabal is pretty bad, too. Hell, look at Chelsea's father-in-law.

 

[shadyJ]

All situations or scenarios can be looked at in at least two ways, KEW. As you've illustrated, on the face of it, there does appear to be a distinct coziness between the financial sector and Trump WRT the high level of appointments. Will they have the best interests of the country? Will they be able to create an environment where more people get jobs? Where incomes cease being largely stagnant? Where deadly crimes in cities stop their rise? Consider, that on the face of it, these individuals are quite well heeled. After all, numerous companies and even government agencies have events where hackers are challenged to discover weaknesses. And in the movie, Catch Me If You Can, what better person to get a handle on money fraud than a counterfeiter? Also bear in mind that prior to this, the wealthiest Americans have gotten far more wealthy where now it takes only eight of them to equal the aggregate wealth of half the world, or something like that.

Come on Chu, you are not this naive. It is already apparent what directions these people are going in, and what their purpose is. Consider that for many of the departments that Trump appointed leadership, the people he put in charge were antagonistic to the very mission of those departments. Consider the imminent repeal of the Dodd-Frank act and the dissolution of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. If you put foxes in charge of the hen house, they are not going to be extra good at protecting a hen house because they know how a fox would attack a hen house. The president is not even willing to divest himself of any conflicts of interest from his business, and neither is any of his staff or appointees.

 

[lovinthehd]

Do people really want some schmuck who doesn't have two nickels to rub together as POTUS? No, we want people who are extremely successful or have governed before they ran for that office.

Then why did we elect this guy president??!!

 

[Irvrobinson]

Then why did we elect this guy president??!!

I have talked to a lot of Trump voters lately, I think they're coming out of the closet, and they just don't care about the stuff above. None of them think Trump is stupid enough to risk the presidency over a financial conflict of interest, and they *want* DC shaken up. They want a federal hiring freeze. They want tough policies with adversaries (and certain allies too). They want cabinet members who think federal agencies need shaking up. They like and trust the fact that Trump talks and acts like they do, unscripted. They think the press is biased and sensationalist. (I do too, frankly.) I've listened to these same arguments over and over again; there's consistency to it. These voters are sick and tired of the way DC operates. They want it changed, even if it hurts. And they do think the US is taken advantage of, and they're tired of that too. Many Americans are afraid of Muslims, and they just want action. I'm surprised at who I hear admit that. It was Mr. New Deal himself who put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps, so I don't think Trump's educated supporters necessarily see the Dems as any safer, freedom-wise. Frankly, I think these folks have some good points, though certainly not all. I just hope Trump doesn't backfire on them (and us with them).

 

[shadyJ]

I have talked to a lot of Trump voters lately, I think they're coming out of the closet, and they just don't care about the stuff above. None of them think Trump is stupid enough to risk the presidency over a financial conflict of interest, and they *want* DC shaken up. They want a federal hiring freeze. They want tough policies with adversaries (and certain allies too). They want cabinet members who think federal agencies need shaking up. They like and trust the fact that Trump talks and acts like they do, unscripted. They think the press is biased and sensationalist. (I do too, frankly.) I've listened to these same arguments over and over again; there's consistency to it. These voters are sick and tired of the way DC operates. They want it changed, even if it hurts. And they do think the US is taken advantage of, and they're tired of that too. Many Americans are afraid of Muslims, and they just want action. I'm surprised at who I hear admit that. It was Mr. New Deal himself who put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps, so I don't think Trump's educated supporters necessarily see the Dems as any safer, freedom-wise. Frankly, I think these folks have some good points, though certainly not all. I just hope Trump doesn't backfire on them (and us with them).

 

[Irvrobinson]

I enjoy Blazing Saddles, but this whole "they're morons" or "deplorables" mindset is what got us saddled with Trump. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) We need to clean up our act too.

 

[shadyJ]

I am all for being nice but not at the expense of the truth. I think you are trying to rationalize the mindset that actually voted for trump, and in doing so you mistakenly soften much of the nastiness intrinsic in it. I don't believe anyone voting for trump did so because they thought he could make their life better, I think they voted for him because they thought he could make some other people's lives worse. There is nothing there but cruelty, fear, and greed, and anything else is trying to over-analyze it. I read a great quote today that is almost a century old but so apt for these times:

"All of us, if we are of reflective habit, like and admire men whose fundamental beliefs differ radically from our own. But when a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental - men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or count himself lost. ... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre - the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

• H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Sun (26 July 1920)

 

[highfigh]

Then why did we elect this guy president??!!

Because he's not Hillary and he's not part of the Washington establishment. How can we blame one person for all of our problems when Congress is now UP TO a whopping 11% approval rating? They have been in low double digits for decades and nothing has changed, except for a few faces.

That line from 'A Day In The Life' is incredibly accurate- "....now I know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall".

The last election cycle was ridiculous, at best. The DNC bulldozed anyone who wasn't Hillary and after the comments they all made about each other, they came out grinning like a Cheshire Cat when she was nominated. With the clown car the GOP trotted out, they proved they're broken by picking Reince Prebus to run the show and by 'show', I mean 'circus'.

 

[rojo]

I read a great quote today that is almost a century old but so apt for these times:

"All of us, if we are of reflective habit, like and admire men whose fundamental beliefs differ radically from our own. But when a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental - men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or count himself lost. ... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre - the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

• Baltimore Sun (26 July 1920)

It's funny, but that quote you chose is from a period of time when banks were ever more mixing intangibly secured investments with commerce, pushing for deregulation, an inflation of the stock market, and finally the crash of '29 and the Great Depression.

Fast forward to today, when somehow derivatives are still a thing, the Dow just topped 20K a few days ago, and Trump is pushing to roll back financial regulations, some of which were enacted to plug the dam that breached in 2008.

 

[herbu]

I enjoy Blazing Saddles, but this whole "they're morons" or "deplorables" mindset is what got us saddled with Trump. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) We need to clean up our act too.

Bingo! Libs keep thinking all Trump supporters are morons, and we'll keep laughing all the way to the white house and congress. Your little whiny protesters get the news coverage and we get the country.

LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!!

 

[herbu]

I think you are trying to rationalize the mindset that actually voted for trump, and in doing so you mistakenly soften much of the nastiness intrinsic in it.

"Nastiness" intrinsic in the Trump supporters? Are you kidding? Do you watch the news?

As long as we're quoting, I'll use this one for so many of the libs... "You can't handle the truth!". The "nastiness" I see every day on the news is from Dems, not Trump supporters. It is exactly why we won. And as long as you can't see it, we'll keep laughing and winning!

Hahahahahahaha!

 

[highfigh]

Bingo! Libs keep thinking all Trump supporters are morons, and we'll keep laughing all the way to the white house and congress. Your little whiny protesters get the news coverage and we get the country.

LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!!

OK, the GOP has Congress, the White House and possibly, the Supreme Court. There's still no guarantee things will go where we need and everyone needs to pay attention.

However, the spasms from the Left are pathetic, childish and definitely aren't productive. The protesters (rioters, really) are like little kids who are having a tantrum- what they're doing is an emotional reaction to something that needs thought, not yelling, screaming, breaking, hitting and crying. The first step in solving a problem is identifying and defining the problem, then coming up with a plan for solving it. The GOP did this. Admittedly, they went about it in some odd ways, but they saw Washington as 'broken' and replaced a lot of the people who they saw as the ones who are, at least partially, responsible- if not in name, by deed and the problem is that they didn't eliminate the GOP members who fall into this group.

Hillary wouldn't have been good for the country- I'm convinced of this, but if she had won, I seriously doubt we would have seen rioting, college students sitting on the ground crying and screaming, travelers' access to airports blocked, street traffic impeded. If she had called for travel restrictions, I'm sure the Left would have acted the same as WHEN Obama did the same- crickets. Why Obama could deport more people than anyone in the history of the US and not hear a peep isn't hard to know- people were far too wiling to accept what he did as good and what he said as the truth. He pardoned people who should be in prison and the Left doesn't care. When a large % of the voting block wants a candidate "because it's time we had a woman in the White House", it shows that they don't have their eyes on the nations well-being. If she had been a good candidate, sure- why not?, but that's not the #1 issue we have- national security and the economy are far more important.

 

[Chu Gai]

Come on Chu, you are not this naive. It is already apparent what directions these people are going in, and what their purpose is. Consider that for many of the departments that Trump appointed leadership, the people he put in charge were antagonistic to the very mission of those departments. Consider the imminent repeal of the Dodd-Frank act and the dissolution of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. If you put foxes in charge of the hen house, they are not going to be extra good at protecting a hen house because they know how a fox would attack a hen house. The president is not even willing to divest himself of any conflicts of interest from his business, and neither is any of his staff or appointees.

Naive? Perhaps. I think of myself as having been beguiled and naive in 2008. As for people being hostile to a department's mission, perhaps it's because it their estimation, the department has long exceeded its reach and needs to be reigned in and refocused. Maybe in their opinion, the departments are bloated, inefficient, structured poorly, whatever. You can call it hostile but I don't see it that way.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I think you are trying to rationalize the mindset that actually voted for trump, and in doing so you mistakenly soften much of the nastiness intrinsic in it.

I am not trying to rationalize anything, shadyJ, I'm trying to learn from it. I admit that as soon as I heard that "deplorables" quip from Clinton I suspected that she would lose, just like Romney did with his about those who wouldn't vote for him. She pissed people off, denigrating anyone who disagreed with her agenda. It doesn't matter what party the candidate represents or what their agenda is, IMO if you insult a big fraction of voters you'll probably lose.

 

[ski2xblack]

Wow, there is a lot of post-modern baroque sectarian irrationality afoot.

Might as well join in. Let's see where we are.
1) Bandits with overtones of stupidity in positions of power, check.
2) Prolific amounts of helplessness among those not in positions of power, check.
3) Combined, these two conditions strengthen and compound the power of the stupid portion of the population.

Yeah, we're fucked.

(Fun linky)