President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Igotadose

Peregrinus wrote: »

By law, the President is supposed to submit a budget for each fiscal year to Congress by the first Monday in February. Which means that Trump is 3 weeks late today in submitting the budget for Fiscal Year 2018 (which runs from 1 October 2017 to 20 September 2018)..

But that's OK. In the year of an administration change, the budget is always submitted late. How could it be otherwise?

But not very late. Obama' first budget request was submitted on 26 February 2009, so Trump's would be expected any day now. Trump's is awaited with interest, since there are an awful lot of circles to be squared between (a) Trump's spending commitments, (b) Trump's tax cut commitments and (c) Trump's targetted budget deficit. Basically, Trump is going to have to roll back massively on some of his tax/spending commitments, or project massive growth in public debt - Congress won't like that - or present a budget which simply doesn't add up. All new presidents face this dilemma, naturally, but Trump's problem, given the extravagance of this promises, is simply an order of magnitude bigger than anything his predecessor faced.

All good points. I believe until there is a budget, Congress is in consta-crisis mode with amendments to keep the lights on. The budget is something that really isn't a budget anyway; it's a political football that Congress kicks around to keep the media interested. Without addressing the big obligations - medi{care/caid} and the interest on the debt, it comes down to grandstanding about the discretionaries like military spending and infrastructure.

Be that as it may, it's not like a President who views bankruptcy as a valid business strategy and uses the courts to preserve that strategy, is going to be particularly interested in a budget. Unless he can explain it in 140 characters or less and someone gives it to him in bullet points.
He did say something about the debt recently, though:

Quote: ""The media has not reported that the National Debt in my first month went down by $12 billion vs a $200 billion increase in Obama first mo.," Trump posted on Twitter Feb. 25, 2017."

Of course, it's good soundbite material, but in terms of the nuts-and-bolts of the economy, nearly meaningless. Here's one of the better comments about it:
"Added Neil Buchanan, a George Washington University law professor and author of The Debt Ceiling Disasters: "No one who knows anything about budgeting would take a 30-day change to have any meaning at all. There is no credit to take, because it's like noticing that rainfall numbers from one month to the next are not exactly the same or that attendance at baseball games is not a constant number.""

And this nugget: "On Jan. 20, the day Trump took office, the federal government had a cash operating balance of $382 billion, according to the Treasury Department.

By Feb. 22, the cash balance had dropped to $228 billion."

From: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/25/donald-trump/why-donald-trumps-tweet-about-decline-national-deb/

Peregrinus

Igotadose wrote: »

All good points. I believe until there is a budget, Congress is in consta-crisis mode with amendments to keep the lights on.

Well, there is a budget for the current year, which Congress has approved. That runs until 30 September 2017, so they're not in crisis mode yet.

Igotadose wrote: »

Be that as it may, it's not like a President who views bankruptcy as a valid business strategy and uses the courts to preserve that strategy, is going to be particularly interested in a budget. Unless he can explain it in 140 characters or less and someone gives it to him in bullet points.

Trump may not be interested, but Congress certainly will, and in particular the House of Reps. Their primary lever over the executive government is their control of expenditure - Trump can't pay for all those extra border guards announced last week, for instance, if the House of Reps doesn't vote him money for the purpose.

There are 435 member of the House and they all have to run for re-election in November next year. They all have things they would like the federal government to do in their districts that they think would improve their prospects of re-election, and their best chance of getting those things done is to deal with them as a quid pro quo for supporting the President's budget request.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Trump's problem, given the extravagance of this promises, is simply an order of magnitude bigger than anything his predecessor faced.

He has the additional problem that he hasn't appointed staff to do the work to prepare the budget. It is going to be egregiously late, or else it will be scribbles on a Mar-a-Lago napkin.

But the Republicans in Congress won't care.

Leroy42

There will be a massive fudge of the budget numbers.

Just look at the explanation of how the wall is going to be paid for. Most people assume that 'getting Mexico to pay' meant, well, getting Mexico to pay for the wall. What it now appears to mean is that the US will pay for it and either by reducing the cost of immigrants or a tax on imports (or a combination) will pay the money back in savings.

Now, that may or may not happen, but what it does do is cost US in the short term. I expect the rest of the budget to be the same. Big increase in military spending, big increase in homeland security, big increase in infrastructure costs, big increase in spending on law enforcement coupled with a big tax reduction plan.

But it can all be waved through because of future savings and future increases in taxes due to higher jobs etc.

It also fits in with Trumps experience. As a businessman you need to invest to make money. You spend now (usually money got from a bank or investors) on the basis that in the future returns will be made. The key difference is that in business when the investment doesn't work out you write it off and start again. That isn't an option for the US Government. And if it turns out not to work, the only thing to effect Trump is he may not run again. That's a pretty one sided bet.

Akrasia

tomwaterford wrote: »

In fairness ireland is no position to lecture anyone. ...I remember two FF minsters on steps of the dail denying flat out the IMF were on their way

They were practically in Dublin at the time....and people still vote for FF in their droves.....so flat out lying obviously deosnt do much long term political damage???

There's a difference between denying something that was going to happen but not happened yet, and denying something that already happening and there is wall to wall news coverage showing that it is happening.

It's the blatant denial of reality that seperates the demagogue from the run of the mill politician. A politician tries to use grey areas and uncertainty and avoids questions or deflects them. A demagogue will outright lie. Assert false claims repeatedly without any regard for the truth or evidence, because demagogues don't rely on rational arguments or convincing people, they rely emotion and appeals to the primal instincts of their supporters.

Nody

Since we had whole "no go" zones etc. here's Tim Pool, independent American reporter who took a challenge to go to the war zone of Malmo as challenged by Paul Joseph Watson from Infowars.

Please notice how he's staying a night in this no go zone after walking through it and also note the number of people who jump at him with steel pipes and beat him down as he walks through this war zone before they rob him and his camera man. Oh wait that never happened and the area was perfectly safe for him to go around in and film...

demfad

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage

Long read here but very important Guardian article exploring the forces and people behind Trumps victory in particular Robert Mercer. He manages the biggest hedge fund in the world worth $55 billion. He has a history in Computer Science and used this to raise this hedge fund.

Also,

Mercer and his daughter owns half of Breitbart news. (Bannon was/is CEO)

They control Cambridge Analyica which is a big date polling company. They have registered hundreds of websites to propagate the stories they want, they use bots and trolls to make these stories trend so they are seen and often picked up by MSM. They analyse individual voters likes, and predict what they will do and what they need to hear to push them in their direction. Cambridge came out of its parent company SCL which has been performing Psychological operations for Nato and others in places like Aghanistan and Pakistan for 25 years. (Bannon was on board until recently)

Finally with the long view: they set up the Government Accountability institute with the purpose of targetting specific people (Hillary Clinton) over time. MSM hadnt money to invest in long investigations after the crash but Mercer had. The films and books about the Clintons, were the genesis of the 'crooked Hillary' slur.

Lots more in there and really worth a read to understand a lot of this unusual election.

demfad

Nody wrote: »

Since we had whole "no go" zones etc. here's Tim Pool, independent American reporter who took a challenge to go to the war zone of Malmo as challenged by Paul Joseph Watson from Infowars.

Please notice how he's staying a night in this no go zone after walking through it and also note the number of people who jump at him with steel pipes and beat him down as he walks through this war zone before they rob him and his camera man. Oh wait that never happened and the area was perfectly safe for him to go around in and film...

Watson said that he would pay for room and board for anyone who dared. Sounded legally binding to me....

Harika

demfad wrote: »

Watson said that he would pay for room and board for anyone who dared. Sounded legally binding to me....

Bill Maher tried that too, when he claimed that Trump was the spawn of an orangutan, and Trump should provide his birth certificate to claim one million dollar. Bill then got away with that he only made a joke. :cool:

Christy42

Harika wrote: »

Bill Maher tried that too, when he claimed that Trump was the spawn of an orangutan, and Trump should provide his birth certificate to claim one million dollar. Bill then got away with that he only made a joke. :cool:

Would be happy enough with the no go areas thin being declared a joke and letting any potential rewards from staying in the no go areas be declared null and void.

conditioned games

Nody wrote: »

Since we had whole "no go" zones etc. here's Tim Pool, independent American reporter who took a challenge to go to the war zone of Malmo as challenged by Paul Joseph Watson from Infowars.

Please notice how he's staying a night in this no go zone after walking through it and also note the number of people who jump at him with steel pipes and beat him down as he walks through this war zone before they rob him and his camera man. Oh wait that never happened and the area was perfectly safe for him to go around in and film...

I take it you didn't watch the video. He spends half the time walking around a block where there is no people and the other half indoors possibly a flat he is renting. So there we have it. The liberals obsession in hiding the truth has resulted in a guy releasing a video walking around an empty block and filming inside his apartment to prove the no go zone areas controlled by muslim immigrants in Sweden don't exist. Astounding, you really did outdo yourself.

MadYaker

conditioned games wrote: »

I take it you didn't watch the video. He spends half the time walking around a block where there is no people and the other half indoors possibly a flat he is renting. So there we have it. The liberals obsession in hiding the truth has resulted in a guy releasing a video walking around an empty block and filming inside his apartment to prove the no go zone areas controlled by muslim immigrants in Sweden don't exist. Astounding, you really did outdo yourself.

So what do you want him to do exactly? Go looking for trouble? According to Donald Trump supporters he shouldn't have to, since Trumps "last night in Sweden" comment they've all been raving about how dangerous these "no go" areas are and how it isn't safe to go there if you aren't a muslim. Apparently that isn't the case, what a surprise. I've been to Sweden twice in the last 4 years, Stockholm and Malmo and when I heard this I thought it was nonsense. I still think it's nonsense. But who knows, that journalist seems unbiased and thorough so maybe he will find evidence of some problems. I'm sure what little he does find will be enough for Trump supporters to blow out of all proportion and context to justify their great leader's stupid comments.

oscarBravo

conditioned games wrote: »

...to prove the no go zone areas controlled by muslim immigrants in Sweden don't exist.

Nothing screams "logical fallacy" like a demand to prove a negative.

What video evidence would you accept as proof that invisible unicorns don't exist?

Professor Moriarty

conditioned games wrote: »

I take it you didn't watch the video. He spends half the time walking around a block where there is no people and the other half indoors possibly a flat he is renting. So there we have it. The liberals obsession in hiding the truth has resulted in a guy releasing a video walking around an empty block and filming inside his apartment to prove the no go zone areas controlled by muslim immigrants in Sweden don't exist. Astounding, you really did outdo yourself.

Apparently, according to Malmo police, crime is actually down in Malmo, whereas fear of crime has risen. It's probably down to the truth being hidden, as you say.

rgossip30

I remember being told once that debate needs balance . This thread is too one sided and obsessed with petty negative comments for any debate . What a difference it would be if Trump was black or muslim.

ThisRegard

Philip Bilden turning down Trump for the role as Naval Secretary. Seems like he would never had fit in anyway as he's a man of principle, apparently he was concerned (like other nominees for different roles) in being able to separate his business concerns with his new role, take note Trump.

And with a nice dose of irony, Spicer had previously insisted that he will absolutely take the role and that it's untrue he's not fully committed when rumours of him doing so first arose.

https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/832995179003052035

http://time.com/4683270/trump-navy-secretary-bilden-withdraws/

President Donald Trump's choice to be secretary of the Navy, businessman Philip Bilden, said Sunday he was withdrawing from consideration for the post, citing concerns about privacy and separating himself from his business interests.

Bilden said he determined that he would not be able to satisfy the Office of Government Ethics requirements without what he called "undue disruption and materially adverse divestment of my family's private financial interests."

Christy42

rgossip30 wrote: »

I remember being told once that debate needs balance . This thread is too one sided and obsessed with petty negative comments for any debate .

When the best defense for Trump is that there should be more people arguing for him for the sake of balance you know you are in trouble. If someone comes up with some serious arguments as to why what he is doing is good then plenty of us are all ears. Till then I am not going to argue in his favour when I know he is wrong.

Also you are wrong. Should a news network bring on people to discuss whether cold blooded murder for fun is wrong? Note: I am not equating Trump to a killer, merely pointing out a debate that really does not need two sides.

Zubeneschamali

rgossip30 wrote: »

What a difference it would be if Trump was black or muslim.

Or fit to govern, or intelligent, or hard-working or honest.

Leroy42

rgossip30 wrote: »

I remember being told once that debate needs balance . This thread is too one sided and obsessed with petty negative comments for any debate . What a difference it would be if Trump was black or muslim.

Absolutely debate needs balance for it to be a vigorous debate. However, balance should never be put ahead of truth.

There is little point having a debate about the existence of the moon. Now if someone mentions that there is a moon, and someone else responds with there is not and then either offers no proof or merely classes any evidence for the Mooners as fake news then can a debate really be held and should there even be a debate?

It always seems to be the last refuge of those that are battling against the tide to claim some vast conspiracy to crush their voice. Instead of claiming that, why not provide evidence that those arguing against Trump are incorrect in their position.

Point out the contra to the evidence being put forward.

rgossip30

Christy42 wrote: »

When the best defense for Trump is that there should be more people arguing for him for the sake of balance you know you are in trouble. If someone comes up with some serious arguments as to why what he is doing is good then plenty of us are all ears. Till then I am not going to argue in his favour when I know he is wrong.

Also you are wrong. Should a news network bring on people to discuss whether cold blooded murder for fun is wrong? Note: I am not equating Trump to a killer, merely pointing out a debate that really does not need two sides.

Your opinion so go and blow off steam if it please you .I will wait until he actually does something wrong not just reading between the lines and looking for petty ways to discredit him .

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or fit to govern, or intelligent, or hard-working or honest.

Well if he is so stupid how did he manage to become a billionaire and get elected . You got proof or are you just following the herd .

ThisRegard

rgossip30 wrote: »

Your opinion so go and blow off steam if it please you .I will wait until he actually does something wrong not just reading between the lines and looking for petty ways to discredit him .

For starters labelling the media as enemies of the American people is ok?

rgossip30 wrote: »

Well if he is so stupid how did he manage to become a billionaire and get elected . You got proof or are you just following the herd .

Got proof he's a billionaire? He inherited his money, and subsequently went bankrupt, more than once I think.

Christy42

rgossip30 wrote: »

Your opinion so go and blow off steam if it please you .I will wait until he actually does something wrong not just reading between the lines and looking for petty ways to discredit him .



Well if he is so stupid how did he manage to become a billionaire and get elected . You got proof or are you just following the herd .

Well the biggest reason for his wealth is the money he received from his dad. He is also a skilled salesman (see also how he got elected). Also being elected in no way stops you from being stupid (unless you want to argue that no us president is stupid as they all got elected, barring a few vice presidents that took over).

Is there absolutely nothing wrong with him lying repeatedly. Ignoring a question on anti semitic, his administration making up terrorist attacks. His administration lying about the attacker of a terrorist attack in Canada.

Just a few examples. I can give more. There is also attacking a company for not selling his daughter's products (and his aide pimping out the products illegally).

How are these not wrong or are point blank refusing to admit he has done anything wrong?

I haven't even gotten into his attacks on the press and the judiciary system yet (the dude has given breitbart a starring role but calls cnn fake news and does not sit with you as wrong?)

rgossip30

ThisRegard wrote: »

For starters labelling the media as enemies of the American people is ok?



Got proof he's a billionaire? He inherited his money, and subsequently went bankrupt, more than once I think.

https://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/ The link to prove the obvious .


When the media attacks you fight back .You hardly expect him to grovel .

weisses

rgossip30 wrote: »

I remember being told once that debate needs balance . This thread is too one sided and obsessed with petty negative comments for any debate . What a difference it would be if Trump was black or muslim.

Provide the balance .. and it will be discussed

But can i suggest to steer away from posts whinging about race as bove and that little gem below

rgossip30 wrote: »

A black President would find it easier to implement travel bans etc as whites never call them racist .
Obama is brown .

It is one sided because he makes a complete fool of himself, I said earlier that I like Trump to be successful, I don't care what side is in power. But if you manage as POTUS to piss off republicans, democrats and a part of your own electorate don't be surprised the posts on an Internet forum are not as positive as you like it to be

In the end I believe a successful US is also beneficial for Ireland.

rgossip30

weisses wrote: »

Provide the balance .. and it will be discussed

But can i suggest to steer away from posts whinging about race as bove and that little gem below




It is one sided because he makes a complete fool of himself, I said earlier that I like Trump to be successful, I don't care what side is in power. But if you manage as POTUS to piss off republicans, democrats and a part of your own electorate don't be surprised the posts on an Internet forum are not as positive as you like it to be

In the end I believe a successful US is also beneficial for Ireland.

I leave you to fight the good fight as what is said in the media is fake on both sides. I take with the a grain of salt . I hope that is a satisfactory answer .

ThisRegard

rgossip30 wrote: »

https://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/ The link to prove the obvious .


When the media attacks you fight back .You hardly expect him to grovel .

Net worth. And did you notice his self made score, hardly a rags to riches story.

The media have rightly pointed out his problems. If he done his job like a good president they would have nothing substantial to criticise him over.

Christy42

rgossip30 wrote: »

I leave you to fight the good fight .

Have you come with an argument yourself? Or a counterargument to people's points. This post is just a vague statement suggesting the post you quote is untrue without a serious counter argument.

You say that the debate is one sided but haven't tried to provide balance. Merely suggested we feel bad for being on the same side.

demfad

Father of Slain Navy Seal William Owens has called for an investigation into his sons death. He refused to meet with Trump when he and his daughter Ivanka made their must publicised trip for the handover of the body. The botched raid cost the death of 29 civilians as well as Owens. His father pointed out that there had not been American boots on the ground in the previous 2 years and that this looked like a PR stunt in the first 2 weeks of office.

Trump administration officials have called the mission a success, saying they had seized important intelligence information. They have also criticized detractors of the raid, saying those who question its success dishonor Ryan Owens’ memory.

His father, however, believes just the opposite.

“Don’t hide behind my son’s death to prevent an investigation,” said the elder Owens, pointing to Trump’s sharp words directed at the mission’s critics, including Sen. John McCain.

“I want an investigation. … The government owes my son an investigation,” he said.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article135064074.html#storylink=cpy

PopePalpatine

demfad wrote: »

Watson said that he would pay for room and board for anyone who dared. Sounded legally binding to me....

Something tells me a guy who works at Infowars would be a fan of Freeman BS, and will claim that it wasn't legally binding because one party didn't carry a weasel with them when they signed up. :pac:

johnnyskeleton

rgossip30 wrote: »

I leave you to fight the good fight .

Mod Note:

This type of comment is below the standards required. If you do not agree with a post, debate the substance of it or else refrain from posting.