Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 3 hours ago, sToNED_CAT said: Of course they expected minor demonstrations (that's what they were), threats of retaliation and "allies" lecturing. Why should he back down? Even if the restrictions against green card holders are repealed, most important parts of ban should stay. In few months it will become an acceptable part of US foreign policy and everybody will adapt to new reality. Did he expect attorneys from across the US at airports volunteering their time and efforts to write habeus petitons and the speed with which the Courts slapped him down. I worry about the Andrew "the Genocide" Jackson play. He's bound to try the Old Possum's move. We just don't know when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 30 minutes ago, Altherion said: This is really amusing: the corporatist GOP types have nowhere to go. Trump gave the vast majority of their base a better alternative so they're trying to move towards the corporatist liberals... but the latter have hated them for decades and aren't going to stop now. You think that corporatist liberals will turn down their funding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 8 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Actually, I can too. I think that is exactly what is happening. I fear we are headed to a Civil War era Constitutional Crisis. If the Judicial Branch tells the Executive Branch to cease and desist, and the Executive Branch says "f$ck you", then what? Funny you should mention that, lets take a look at the sitemap for whitehouse.gov Quote Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Hmm, something looks funny, I thought there were 3 branches and they were all important. What does the web archive show from the morning before the inauguration? Quote Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources Oh, The Judicial Branch! I guess that's not important when you've got someone you can trust in charge! I had seen comments on what went missing from the whitehouse page before, but I hadn't seen this particular one before today. I didn't discover it myself, but have (obviously) just verified it myself), was removed with his batch of site updates. 17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Civilian control is deeply engrained in the US Military. I doubt a coup would be successful without a complete collapse and disillusion of the US. I know there are still plenty here who either refuse to accept how dire the situation is or are rubbing their hands together at what is happening, but I don't really care if they laugh at me for being 'alarmist' - this outcome is not out of the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, Fragile Bird said: China only has 5.4% of the debt in large part because the US Goverment purchased so much of its debt through the quantitative easing, an alternative to but essentially the same as printing money. The total debt is $19.9 T, and the largest portion is owed to Social Security, $2.8 T, which is why Republicans take about the coming crisis in social security and the need to cut benefits. They don'the see how it'should going to be paid back. Okay this was something I wanted to write or rant about, since seeing an article, posted on the last US politics thread with some Republican politician bemoaning 20 trillion dollars in debt and using it evidently as a reason to gut the ACA. Now, we all know if you’re conservative you are really are worried about the debt. I’m mean that’s what it means to be conservative! You take debts and deficits seriously. You’d never, let’s say for instance, use debt issues to get rid of programs you don’t like, now would you? No, no conservatives would never do that! But, more seriously. If somebody says, “golly, the debt is 20 trillion dollars!”, the proper response is something along the lines of, “well golly I don’t give a fuck!” Cause what does that even mean, really? Is 20 trillion dollars a little or is it a lot? It seems like a lot, but that’s like saying, “golly so and so is 50,000 dollars in debt!!” and then you find out said person pulls in about a million dollars a year. The proper metric is the debt/GDP ratio. The current debt/GDP ratio, excluding debt held by government agencies, in the United States is about 77%. Now yes that number is a bit high by historical averages. But is it something to be alarmed about right now? Not really. What might be a bit alarming is that the according to CBO the debt/GDP ratio is projected to be around 145% in 2045. Putting us right around where Greece was at. Except, we won’t be exactly Greece with a 145% debt/GDP ratio because unlike Greece we control our own monetary supply. And, most likely, people around the world, most likely, will still want to hold US debt and dollars as safe stores of value. It's important to understand the dynamics of government debt. It goes: d(t+1) = [1+ i(t)]/[1+g(t)d(t) + p(t) which just says, the nominal value of total debt/GDP ratio, in the next period, d(t+1) equals total debt/GDP in the present period plus interest payments, divided by the rate of growth (again, in nominal terms) plus the primary deficit / GDP (or surplus). Primary deficits being government deficits less interest payments. Henceforth, no conservatives will be allowed to talk about debt until they understand the above equation. Any conservative that talks about national debt without understanding the above equation will be asked to leave the fiscal sustainability seminar until they have done the proper homework. LOL. Now, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if [1+i(t)] < [1+ g(t)] than the trajectory of debt is on sustainable path, as opposed to an explosive path, regardless of what the primary deficit is. In fact if you solve the equation, and assume constant i(t), g, and p(t), you get something like: as n increases d(t+n) = p/G-R which just means pick a primary deficit and eventually your debt/GDP will eventually converge to some level of debt/GDP ratio. It also gives the reason most nations don’t pay back their debts. They just outgrow them. When England had a debt/GDP ratio well over 200% after the Napoleonic Wars it didn’t really pay it all back. It just simply outgrew its debt over the 19th Century. Anyway, the CBO in its latest debt projection report makes several important assumptions about the path US of debt levels. Two important key variables are it’s projection of interest rates and “excess medical cost”. If those projections are wrong, the level of debt some years forward will look very different. With regard to interest rates, the US for many years has had higher growth and it’s interest payments on debt: The United States has had several years, in which its growth has exceeded yearly interest payments: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cxjb Anyway, it shouldn’t be a secret as far as US the future path of US debt is concerned the biggest driver is Medicare and Social Security. With regard to Social Security, the CBO makes the assumption that that Social Security will maintain full payments, if I recall correctly, even after the trust fund runs out. I doubt that will happen. There are ways to fix Social Security to put it on a sustainable path after 2034 or whatever like expanding the scope of the payroll taxes past the 118,00 dollar limit. But, I don’t think the Republicans really want to try. They just say, “golly cuts are the only option!!”. Which really leaves Medicare looking like the biggest cost driver. On a side note, the idea that the ACA needs to be cut in the name of “fiscal responsibility” is laughable. According to the latest CBO report, about 70 Billion was spent on people in expanded Medicare coverage in 2016. About another, 49 billion was spent on subsidies in the individual exchanges for a total of about 119 billion. Now compare that with the estimated cost of the tax exclusion for employer sponsored healthcare which is estimated at $266 Billion dollars and actually benefits more wealthy people. Or compare that to total federal outlays which is ball park about 3.8 trillion a year, and tell me that the ACA needs to be abolished in the name of “fiscal responsibility”. Conservatives try to pull this crap a lot. Which is use the debt in order to get rid of programs they don’t like. It’s like when they say, “entitlement reform”, what they really mean is Social Security and Medicare. But, they really don’t have the courage to say what they mean because they know those programs are popular and they would get massacred if they said what they really meant. They also know or should know that part of fixing those programs will require raising revenues, but you know they never talk about that when they start moaning about the debt. Also, even though, as far as long fiscal sustainability goes, it’s desirable to have greater growth than interest rates, the fact is we want interest rates up a bit, so monetary policy can do it’s job, if we hit some economic turbulence in the future. You don’t want to be up against the zero lower bound. Maintaining a good bit of consumption is needed for a while. That is just one reason why the Heritage Foundation’s proposed plan to cut 10 trillion dollars, mainly from Medicare and Social Security, over the next 10 years is stupid. It’s even stupider when its paired with Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy and the tax cuts corporations are about to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: You think that corporatist liberals will turn down their funding? No, but they're not funding politicians for the sake of simply giving away money -- they want something in return and the liberals can only give them a little bit. For example, Koch Industries is focused on petroleum refinement, energy, fertilizers, etc. They agree with the liberal corporatists on immigration, but this is far less important to them than the liberals' stance on fossil fuels which the latter aren't going to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 http://www.whitehousetransitionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/LBJ_National_Security_Forum_National_Security_Council_9-23-2016.pdf Quote Meghan, I'm assuming you didn't know this, but the reason you never saw Karl Rove in a national security meeting was that the President told Karl Rove, you may never come to a National Security Council meeting. So you did know that? MS. O’SULLIVAN: Well, I learned that later. MR. BOLTEN: We didn't advertise that, but the President made that clear right at the beginning. If it's an NSC meeting, you may not appear. And it wasn't because he didn't respect Karl's advice or didn't value his input. He valued it enormously, and Karl is one of the one of the brightest and most eclectically informed and bright individuals I've ever known, who could have substantially useful input on almost any issue. But the President also knew that the signal he wanted to send to the rest of his administration, the signal he wanted to send to the public, and the signal he especially wanted to send to the military is that the decisions I'm making that involve life and death for the people in uniform will not be tainted by any political decisions. And I think we ended with the approval ratings to prove it. (Laughter.) Nostalgia for the George W. Bush Administration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 52 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Did he expect attorneys from across the US at airports volunteering their time and efforts to write habeus petitons and the speed with which the Courts slapped him down. He's getting some corporate CEO's pushback too; this article mentions Starbucks, Nexflix, EBay and others. Quote Donald Trump’s executive order, which blocked all citizens of seven majority- Muslim nations and refugees from any nation from entering the United States, has drawn widespread criticism from the corporate world. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings called Trump’s order “unAmerican” and said it would “make America less safe (through hatred and loss of allies) rather than more safe.” Slack CEO Stewart Butterfield called Trump’s actions “gratuitously evil.” EBay CEO Devin Wenig said the executive order “fundamentally contradicts our company’s values and America’s values.” Starbucks, however, is taking things a step further. In an open letter, CEO Howard Schultz announced that, in response to Trump, Starbucks would hire 10,000 refugees. https://thinkprogress.org/starbucks-epic-response-to-trumps-executive-order-a9d2cd8f9786#.tj2mks3ze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squab Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: the speed with which the Courts slapped him down. Does this mean the ban isn't in place then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Quote Nostalgia for the George W. Bush Administration There may be a lot of that at this rate. Trump: McCain and Graham 'looking to start WWIII' http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-mccain-graham-234342 Rubio, Scott say they’re ‘uneasy’ with Trump’s immigration order http://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2017/01/rubio-scott-say-theyre-uneasy-with-trumps-immigration-order-109154 More Republicans chastise Trump over executive order After holding back, a growing number of GOP lawmakers came out Sunday in opposition to his refugee directive. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-refugee-republicans-234326 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 54 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said: http://www.whitehousetransitionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/LBJ_National_Security_Forum_National_Security_Council_9-23-2016.pdf Nostalgia for the George W. Bush Administration It's crossed my mind more than once recently that I'd take W back with open arms in exchange for Trump. Truly amazing to me to have reached that point in such short order. I was at Obama's first inauguration in 09 as I lived in DC at the time. Thinking back to that day, I would have been hard pressed to come up with a scenario in which George W Bush nostalgia would be a real thing within the decade. Though I have always felt that George W the person is actually a good and decent man, up until the surprise Trump victory I felt pretty sure that he would probably go down as the worst president I would see in my lifetime due to the colossal Iraq blunder. The fallout of which we are still dealing with today. I try to keep the dramatics to a minimum. Humans have a tendency to believe that the current time period, no matter what it is, is one of extreme historical importance and I think that often leads to unnecessary angst amongst those who pay attention to politics. I think ideological mouthpieces of any stripe always feel that we are in, or about to be in, a very dire circumstance if the 'sheeple' don't wake up and see things thier way immediately. It makes perfect sense that this type of rhetoric appeals to many as we are all the stars of our own lives and we like to have a dramatic backdrop, but I've always had a healthy skepticism of political doomsayers and partisan zealots. In the context of early 21st century America, it has been my feeling that that passionate rhetoric of gloom and doom from America's political fringes always had more than a tinge of hyperbole. That things really aren't, and won't get THAT bad, because the times that we live in simply do not call for it. The world is never without problems or conflicts but, in general, we have been enjoying a period of overall peace and prosperity where the great powers have more incentive to cooperate than fight and therefore Americans and Europeans have gone many decades without having to deal with the drastic and violent collisions of major powers that characterized the entire world during the early part of the 20th century. The world has become increasingly more connected and throughout my lifetime I have not had the sense that we would be likely to see a reversal of that. In order to win the presidency Trump had to paint a very bleak picture of affairs. What I would consider to be smallish blips in a historical sense (Islamic terror, immigration, current state of race relations, slower than liked economic recovery, etc) Trump successfully elevated to a standing of existential importance in the minds of his supporters (Ironically ignoring and denying real issues of actual existential importance such as climate change). I think his team recognized early on that people wouldn't vote for this guy unless things were really bad and folks felt that they not only had nothing to lose by voting for him, but risked disaster if they didn't. They set about creating the narrative that everything is shit. Considering that everything was not shit, I am still more than a little dumbfounded that it actually worked. For all his faults W was a completely different animal than Trump and much more in keeping with the traditional American optimism and faith in our institutions. When W was president, I didn't like many of his moves but I never felt that there was a chance that we wouldn't get past it. I was certainly glad when his term ended but in spite of some partisan vitriol directed toward him in his last days in office I never felt that he wouldn't respect the peaceful transfer of power. And at no time during W's presidency did I feel that the future of American democracy was in doubt. With Trump at the helm, for the first time in my life I'm starting to buy into the drama. I have no idea what is going to happen and I'm legitimately worried about the future of this country, and the world by extension. So yea, very weird to say, but I think I kinda miss W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said: http://www.whitehousetransitionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/LBJ_National_Security_Forum_National_Security_Council_9-23-2016.pdf Nostalgia for the George W. Bush Administration This would work ever so much better if nobody remembered the outcome of G. W. Bush's interactions with the military. Trump would have to work very, very hard to come anywhere close to the catastrophic consequences of these interactions and given the opposition that Trump faces among a wide range of the elite, it may be altogether impossible for him to compete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 spare us the sudden newfound respect for dead/retired republicans a tired trope, a convenient tool to lament the current lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, Commodore said: spare us the sudden newfound respect for dead/retired republicans a tired trope, a convenient tool to lament the current lot Can one even classify Trump as a Republican in order to make the comparison? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 5 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said: I think Altherion's wrong strategically. If Trump had just ordered a moratorium on refugees, there'd be some handwringing, and that's probably be it. But by banning entry of permanent residents, he's associated the moratorium on refugees with banning of people like Luol Deng or Mo Farrah. Now maybe Steve Bannon's playing the long game and hoping that one of the refugees let in will commit an act of terror, but in the short term, it seems like a blunder. Experience shows that this won't be necessary. Any act of terror will do. Refugees haven't committed any of the acts being used to justify this action, but Trump and his supporters don't make any distinction. Any attack linked to Islam will do. 3 hours ago, Tempra said: SCOTUS nominee possibly coming tomorrow. God help the poor soul who is about to feel the wrath of the mob. http://www.abc-7.com/story/34374356/white-house-supreme-court-choice-could-be-announced-monday Remember, it's 'the voice of the people' when you agree with them, 'the wrath of the mob' when you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samantha Stark Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 4 hours ago, Tempra said: SCOTUS nominee possibly coming tomorrow. God help the poor soul who is about to feel the wrath of the mob. http://www.abc-7.com/story/34374356/white-house-supreme-court-choice-could-be-announced-monday A good thing they play no role in SCOTUS appointments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 the action isn't targeting refugees, it's targeting terrorists entering under the guise of a refugee the reason Obama listed these seven countries for additional scrutiny is they have non or barely functioning governments (other than Iran) and it's difficult to vet people coming from them, and therefore it wouldn't be hard for them to gain entry as a refugee we take in plenty of refugees already, if we feel we can't guarantee people entering from jihadi controlled countries are not a threat, it's not a moral outrage to deny entry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 30 minutes ago, S John said: In order to win the presidency Trump had to paint a very bleak picture of affairs. What I would consider to be smallish blips in a historical sense (Islamic terror, immigration, current state of race relations, slower than liked economic recovery, etc) Trump successfully elevated to a standing of existential importance in the minds of his supporters (Ironically ignoring and denying real issues of actual existential importance such as climate change). All of the issues you list are relatively unimportant, but there does exist an existential threat to the current system which neither you nor Trump mentioned, but which ultimately drove Trump's success. In fact, it has been there all along; Karl Marx described it back in the 19th century and, although the resolution he predicted did not come to pass, there's no doubt that the problem is there: the capitalists are capturing a progressively larger share of the economic pie and, since it is no longer growing quickly enough to compensate, there are fewer and fewer crumbs left for everyone else (a fact made worse by them not being evenly distributed across geographic and political regions). The slow economic recovery is a direct consequence of this and the strife over immigration and race are indirect consequences (in an internal struggle over a diminishing resource, societies split by multiple lines of division). I don't know how much of this Trump knows or believes, but given that Bannon called himself a Leninist, I'm fairly confident that he is at least aware of it. Capitalism has run into this issue before and so far it has always been resolved by some combination of faster economic growth, decreased inequality (courtesy of the government) and/or a massive war. Trump appears to be trying for a combination of the first and the second (the third is off the table because of MAD). We'll see if he succeeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Trumps approval ratings are diving so low, I wouldnt be surprized if his "snake" advisors arent cooking up either "wag the dog" or false flag scenarios to drum up some support for another military "adventure". I do not think Trump would have any compunction over sacrificing soldier or civilian, if he thought he could personally benefit, ie( see an increase in approval ratings). America has come to a dangerous place, with a wreckless pilot at its helm. It is the ordinary working class, soldiers, immigrants, the destitute,the sick (huddled masses), that will end up paying the burden for the Trump agenda. Someone please blindfold that Lady in the New York Harbor. She shouldnt have to bare witness to this assault on liberty. NYT Kristof editorial- "Ann Frank today, is a Syrian Girl." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/opinion/anne-frank-today-is-a-syrian-girl.html?mabReward=A5&recp=8&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 5 minutes ago, Commodore said: the action isn't targeting refugees, it's targeting terrorists entering under the guise of a refugee It's actually doing neither. It's targeting all refugees from Syria (though apparently others are being detained because reasons) with zero actual terrorist actions having happened on US soil from refugees since 1980. The other 6 nations have nothing to do with refugees and in fact all VISA applications are being denied from those countries, and all re-entries from green card holders who have already been vetted are also being disallowed. Quote the reason Obama listed these seven countries for additional scrutiny is they have non or barely functioning governments (other than Iran) and it's difficult to vet people coming from them, and therefore it wouldn't be hard for them to gain entry as a refugee Which is why the US has a vetting program that takes nearly 2 years to complete. Quote we take in plenty of refugees already, if we feel we can't guarantee people entering from jihadi controlled countries are not a threat, it's not a moral outrage to deny entry It kind of is when you're watching dead kids wash up on the beach, the US refuses to do anything else to help, and conservative christian groups are lining up to help the refugees and are being told that they cannot. Especially this is the case when there is zero evidence of refugees that have come to the US are actually in any way, shape or form problematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sToNED_CAT Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 23 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said: Trumps approval ratings are diving so low, I wouldnt be surprized if his "snake" advisors arent cooking up either "wag the dog" or false flag scenarios to drum up some support for another military "adventure". I do not think Trump would have any compunction over sacrificing soldier or civilian, if he thought he could personally benefit, ie( see an increase in approval ratings). Hillary Clinton lost. Not everyone uses Clintonian methods to boost his approval ratings or distract from scandals. 4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Did he expect attorneys from across the US at airports volunteering their time and efforts to write habeus petitons and the speed with which the Courts slapped him down. Well, that's what ACLU always does, so I guess yes. And he was not really slapped down. What happened was that courts ordered the release of few hundred green card holders,the ban itself is still valid. 22 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Which is why the US has a vetting program that takes nearly 2 years to complete. You can't really vet people from failed states, that's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.022a4ba4f4aa53526e0290eedde6f808.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.