New Endangered Species: Deficit Hawk
Deficit hawk sightings used to be quite common in Washington, D.C., but early indications are that this bird's about to become a lot rarer. It may even wind up on the endangered species list, in fact. This sort of thing normally happens every time a Republican is in the White House (remember Dick Cheney's infamous "deficits don't matter" line?), but this time around it's already looking like the deficit hawks could disappear entirely from within the Beltway.
Donald Trump's agenda includes many items which are going to cost a bunch of money, but few explanations of how any of it will be paid for. Of course, the favorite Republican way to pay for stuff is to shred the safety net, but Trump actually spoke out against this while campaigning, so that's going to be an interesting battle to watch as budgets are hammered out between Congress and the White House.
Congressional Republicans, of course, will be pushing for a huge tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. It's what they do best, after all. They still firmly believe in the fantasy that "tax cuts pay for themselves," even when the numbers clearly show this not to be true. But exacerbating the situation will be Trump's costly agenda, which includes a big military buildup, a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan, and a wall/fence on the southern border (although Trump insists that he's somehow going to make Mexico pay for this -- just about the only time Trump addressed how any of his agenda will be paid for). All of this costs money. Even Trump's smaller promises -- like doubling or tripling the Border Patrol -- will require more federal money be spent. And if Trump follows through on his deportation plan, that also will require a lot more federal cops to implement. The crowning cherry on top of this mountainous sundae of spending is repealing Obamacare -- which actually saves the federal government a lot of money, meaning a repeal will drive the deficit up.
Trump never really talked much about deficits while running, except to occasionally take a shot at Obama. He's obviously not a deficit hawk himself, as evidenced by his numerous bankruptcies. If he sticks to his promise not to touch Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, then pretty much everything both Trump and a Republican Congress does is going to increase federal deficits. The only tax hike Trump ever supported was to close the carried-interest loophole, but it's highly doubtful that Republicans in Congress are going to go along with this.
The problem with Republican ideology is that the numbers just never seem to add up. If they begin by slashing federal revenues with a big tax cut for the wealthy and then enact major parts of Trump's agenda, the deficit will explode. I leave it to the economists as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing right now, but no matter how you feel about deficits, math is math.
Jared Bernstein helpfully explains how the standard Republican model usually works:
"There's no plausible pathway that gets you from a huge trickle-down tax cut to a doubling of the growth rate," said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and former chief economic adviser to Vice President Biden. "What will happen is what always happens in these moments: You exacerbate after-tax inequality, and you generate large deficits."
. . .
"When their phony growth agenda doesn't work," he said, "they're going to throw their hands up and say, 'Sorry, folks, we're going to have to cut entitlements.'"
Except this time Trump may reject entitlement cuts altogether. If he sticks to this promise (anything's possible), Republicans won't have any other answer and they'll all start channeling their inner Cheney ("deficits don't matter... because a Republican's in the White House!").
Perhaps all of this will unleash record growth and the tax cuts will pay for themselves and the deficit will go down. Again, anything's possible, right? But what happens if the record-long expansion period we are in ends? The business cycle often shifts almost independently of what is happening in Washington, and some economists already say we're overdue for another recession. What happens if that occurs in the midst of the grand Republican experiment? This isn't so far-fetched when you consider that Trump and the Republicans are already salivating at the prospects of freeing Wall Street from meaningful oversight, which might result in another financial crisis.
Whether such a downturn happens on Trump's watch or not, if Trump gets what he wants (massive spending increases) and the congressional Republicans get what they always want (a big tax cut for the wealthy), the only real possible result is larger deficits. Republicans may attempt to do away with agencies like the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency, but even those savings will likely be swallowed up by the growing deficit.
Which means the most likely outcome is that Republicans just conveniently stop caring about deficits altogether. After all, it's easier to shift your ideology than it is to balance a budget. Which is why I'm predicting that deficit hawks will become so rare in Washington that they will merit inclusion on the endangered species list. Their numbers will decrease to the point of extinction, right up to the time when a Democrat wins back the White House. When that happens, the deficit hawks will stage an amazing recovery, and be seen everywhere in Washington once again.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I very much doubt Trump will do anything whatsoever about "entitlements" except sign bills that abolish them. He a functioning illiterate so there's no way he's going to wade through hundreds of pages of bills before picking up the nearest pen. Someone will give him a quick brief as to what he's signing - ensuring that he hears what he wants to hear - and he'll sign.
I cannot imagine for one moment that he'd do anything other than this. I'm astonished that anyone thinks he will; that he'd go against the "advice" of Bannon and congress. He isn't that invested in the office.
I have a question for everybody:
How is Trump, or any other President for that matter, going to bring manufacturing jobs back, once 3-D Printing technology really takes off? Has everybody forgotten about that?
For example, what happens when you no longer need an entire factory filled with assembly line workers, when you can just 3-D Print an entire automobile for the most part instead? By the way, it has already happened. It just needs to be perfected.
Same thing with jobs like truck driving. Right now, truck driving is the largest middle class employer in like 21 states I believe. What happens to all those jobs when they are all replaced by self-driving truck technology?
How is Trump, or again any other President, going to bring coal mining jobs back? Nations like Canada have already pledged to phase out ALL coal fired electric power plant generation by 2030. Here in the USA, shale oil fracking has made natural gas way more cheaper than coal. It takes 15 years to bring a coal fired electric plant online, and only 5 years to bring a natural gas fired plant online. So, what happens when West Virginia and Pennsylvania don't get those coal mining jobs back? Do you really think that utility companies who see the writing on the wall and on their bottom line, are suddenly going to reverse themselves out of a trend that has been developing for years and suddenly start a huge increase in coal again? What about the whole trend of younger generations wanting the companies they patronize to be "green?" It is after all, affecting everything from grocery stores and restaurants moving to cage free chicken, local produce usage, sustainable development, etc. Why would it not affect utility companies, etc. too?
What are the societal and political implications?
I think Trump cares more about adulation than the size of the deficit. He will have one question of Bannon - how is this going to play in Peoria? (That won't be his question literally, as you say he is a functioning ignoramus, it will be more like "am I going to upset America?")
CW predicted the use of the bully pulpit, and this is where it will come into play - Trump will want to continue in person events with screaming fans, and will take any credit going and blame everybody else if anything goes wrong (e.g. the Ford lie last week).
How long can he keep up the con? Maybe longer than we think. Or maybe he will become boring - the kiss of death.
What are the societal and political implications?
Universal Basic Income?
Can humans live in a world where most are not needed for anything, but they can have just about anything they want?
Did anybody see Wall-E?
Getting back to another question:
What should be U.S. foreign policy regardless of a Democratic or Republican administration. Are there things we can all agree on that should be policy goals?
1.) promotion and support of the rule of law
2.) promotion support of international stability and peace
3.) promotion and support of human rights around the world if not necessarily democracy per se
4.) promotion and support of a free market economic system along the lines of perhaps democratic socialism as practiced in Germany or Sweden etc.
Additions? Deletions?
What tools would you suggest be used in executing those goals?
He a functioning illiterate so there's no way he's going to wade through hundreds of pages of bills before picking up the nearest pen.
A "functioning illiterate" could not possibly be a successful as Trump has been...
Further, there is simply NO FACTS out there to support your accusation..
It's just another personal attack based on partisan bigotry...
Someone will give him a quick brief as to what he's signing - ensuring that he hears what he wants to hear - and he'll sign.
You are confusing the Trump administration with the Obama administration...
How is Trump, or any other President for that matter, going to bring manufacturing jobs back, once 3-D Printing technology really takes off? Has everybody forgotten about that?
Whose going to manufacturer the 3-D printers?? :D
For example, what happens when you no longer need an entire factory filled with assembly line workers, when you can just 3-D Print an entire automobile for the most part instead? By the way, it has already happened. It just needs to be perfected.
And you think that can be "perfected" in 4 years time??
How is Trump, or again any other President, going to bring coal mining jobs back? Nations like Canada have already pledged to phase out ALL coal fired electric power plant generation by 2030.
Yea, and we'll believe it when we see it...
Besides, we're going to have to build MORE coal plants and fire them ALL up to create a blanket of CO2 to protect the planet from the coming ice age... :D
Don't get me wrong, JM.. Your's is a thought provoking comment.. Much like my Power From Subspace device comment that never took off.. :D
But these are issues that we're going to have to worry about in 40 years.. Or 400 years...
It's not possible that these issues will be a concern in 4 years or even 8 years...
So, what happens when West Virginia and Pennsylvania don't get those coal mining jobs back?
You retrain them as natural gas and fracking "miners"..
A "functioning illiterate" could not possibly be a successful as Trump has been...
Says the guy who, apparently, can't type right.. :D
"A "functioning illiterate" could not possibly be a successful businessman as Trump has been..."
"Well he don't know talkin' good like me and you.."
-Rocket Raccoon, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY
:D
What tools would you suggest be used in executing those goals?
"WEAPONS TO MAXIMUM!!"
-STARGATE SG-1, 200
:D
Didn't some of ya'all say that you would back Trump on Infrastructure legislation??
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/22/pence-backs-trillion-dollar-infrastructure-bill-says-america-elected-ceo.html
That's an awful lot of jobs....
Did anybody see Wall-E?
Apropos of anything..
Did you know that, in the movie WALL-E, there is absolutely no dialogue until 47 minutes into the movie??
Interesting factoid...
Michale wrote:
"Whose going to manufacturer the 3-D printers?? :D"
You never heard of robots building other robots? I give you: Will Smith in I, Robot and Winona Ryder in Alien Resurrection.
"But these are issues that we're going to have to worry about in 40 years.. Or 400 years..."
More like 10 to 20 years time. Self driving car technology is already being road tested, and under experimental current use by companies like Uber. Self check out machines are already here in grocery stores. Which means one cashier can now monitor 8 cash registers and replace 7 other workers.
Testing of those little radio tags for check out is already under way. The same ones that set off alarms if they are not deactivated if you try to walk out the door with clothing or electronic items if you don't pay for them. They can also be encoded with pricing information like bar codes. Cheaply mass produce them and insert one in every item as you manufacture it. Run a whole shopping cart by a scanner without even having to unload it, and Boom, a scanner rings up and totals the entire cart for you without the need of a human cashier at all.
"It's not possible that these issues will be a concern in 4 years or even 8 years..."
Widespread use of fracking took off rather quickly didn't it? Is Oklahoma going to be willing to trade oil field jobs so West Virginia can have more coal field jobs?
"You retrain them as natural gas and fracking "miners"..
Yes, because retraining them as medical coders worked out so well?? And getting them to move from the hills of Kentucky and West Virginia where the coal fields are to places like Western New York state or North Dakota where the oil shale fields are will be so easy???
"Didn't some of ya'all say that you would back Trump on Infrastructure legislation??"
Sure, but again, like CW said, that's going to cause a huge spike in deficit spending, unless you raise taxes. Think of the federal interstate highway program under Eisenhower or the Apollo program under Kennedy and Johnson. ALso, how is it any different in principle than Obama's first term stimulus spending package that Republicans so roundly condemned? Isn't that simply another case of it's bad when Obama proposes it but good when Republicans are for it instead?
Elizabeth wrote:
"What tools would you suggest be used in executing those goals?"
I am assuming you are referring to U.S. Foreign policy goals.
1.) diplomacy
2.) international aid
3.) international trade treaties
4.) military power, i.e. regime change etc.
5.) economic sanctions
6.) propaganda a la Radio Marti or Radio Free Europe, etc.
7.) social media and internet information deliberately beamed into closed or semi closed nations like China, Iran and North Korea
8.) support for non governmental actors such as international free election promoters working in places like Ukraine and Belarus?
Again, additions? deletions?
Additions? Deletions?
American First?
I did not hear one word on foreign policy from Trump for 18 months.
Re: Functioning Illiterate:
This has been a claim made by Tony Schwartz many times after working with Trump and writing "The Art of the Deal" for him. It was originally intended to be an autobiography, but Trump couldn't focus sufficiently and would launch into self serving vignettes, so it was transformed into a self help book instead.
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/does-donald-trump-have-a-literacy-problem/
It isn't as though the Times of Israel was the first to point this out:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
Again, additions? deletions?
Adding to Elizabeth's list:
Culture: one of the most insidious (from e.g. the former Soviet Union's perspective, or Iran's today) change agents is American culture. From blue jeans to music, movies to sports, the most impactful vision America projects is its wealth and way of life. As Elizabeth points out, social media is important, and its role in projecting American culture is overwhelming.
Hope this doesn't get viewed as spam, but here's a repost of my reply to neil from the previous column that was getting stale
neil
212
No need to apologize.
I prefer long winded and detailed to short and vague.
In my opinion, the way you describe yourself and your economic views puts you to the left of Hillary, Obama and Cameron and more in line with Merkel... particularly the "with a strong safety net" bit and the "leadership of a country that encourages free movement of capital has an obligation to address the implications for the losers" part.
The "universal wage to spread the increasing wealth across more people" belief is practically Corbyn territory.
"To me, this is where the U.S. governments have fallen down for decades."
In your opinion, is there a line that has been or can be crossed by these free trade deals where that "falling down" would cause you to stop supporting these deals?
As far as "large scale heavy manufacturing" goes, the decline seems to be related to the level of development... as in, once a nation falls into the developed category, demand decreases to just growth, maintenance and replacement.
However, the decline isn't complete as new cars, buildings, washing machines, etc. will still be needed.
I think we should be pursuing a strategy like Germany, where technology and automation reduce the labor costs while maintaining the industries instead of offshoring.
Our current policies cater to the "anything for an extra nickel of profit" for our one percenters Wall Street ideology... a focus on the short term rather than stability and quality.
I see the same ideology being followed in the "other manufacturing classes however - high tech (e.g. fabs), simple discrete (component assembly lines), process (e.g. pharma), etc"
Neither Dems nor Repubs are working to alleviate the pain of those who are losing out, nor even discussing ending the tax breaks that incentivize offshoring.
So, how do you think we achieve some progress?
A
You never heard of robots building other robots? I give you: Will Smith in I, Robot and Winona Ryder in Alien Resurrection.
And, in 100 years are so, you might have a point. :D
More like 10 to 20 years time.
While I would dispute even that, it's a moot point..
President Trump will not have to deal with this issue...
If it becomes an issue, it will likely be the issue of the POTUS elected in 2030 or 2040...
Neither Dems nor Repubs are working to alleviate the pain of those who are losing out, nor even discussing ending the tax breaks that incentivize offshoring.
So, how do you think we achieve some progress?
Simple...
Ignore Party and vote for PEOPLE.....
I would have voted for Trump regardless, even if he ran as a Democrat....
No one would be more amazed than I for doing it, but I would have done it..
In your opinion, is there a line that has been or can be crossed by these free trade deals where that "falling down" would cause you to stop supporting these deals?
No. In my opinion it is more important to keep growing the economy and figure out the economic distribution than to stop growing the economy until an equitable distribution is in place. I keep my eye on the Gini (post transfer). In this country we have accepted or been duped into a high Gini:
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-major-trends-in-us-income.html#.WDRyleErI1h
I think we should be pursuing a strategy like Germany, where technology and automation reduce the labor costs while maintaining the industries instead of offshoring.
America has always indulged in destructive capitalism to a greater extent than most other wealthy nations. And while I can see the disadvantages that you point out with respect to Germany, here are a few of points that make me shy away from advocating a similar approach:
1. Germany has had 20+ years of being the best manufacturer in a relatively new free trade zone - they are winning at the expense of manufacturing workers in France and Greece, just as the non-union auto plants in the South are winning at the expense of Michigan and Ohio
2. Germany have a relatively uniform culture and thus see transfers of wealth as helping out people like themselves. In the U.S. we hear dogwhistles from the right about African-Americans and dogwhistles from the left about rednecks. So investment in education, which used to be seen as a common good in this country, is now seen as taking money from "us" to give it to "them" (BTW this is why I want to track hate crime statistics - I'm using it as a proxy for how divided we are)
3. Germany has been a success longer than other nations, but its continued success is not guaranteed. I see the rise of the AfD as an indicator that communal unity is deteriorating and I'm concerned about the lack of new world class business. BMW, SAP, Siemens, etc. are old and innovation in all their industries is coming from the West Coast (Tesla, SFDC, Google (e.g. Nest)). Germany is starting to play catch up - not a good place to be.
4. Wealth and trade are moving from a U.S. - EU axis (Atlantic) to a U.S. - Asia (Pacific) axis. This is why I'm furious about TPP. We had a chance to define the playing field in our favor for a century and some 70-year-old nitwits (Sanders and Trump) snatched it away from us. I can't express what a bloody idiot I think Sanders is (Trump is clueless, he probably thought TPP was toilet papering somebody's house twice). Again, you don't stop growing the "pie", you figure out how to divide it more equitably.
Neither Dems nor Repubs are working to alleviate the pain of those who are losing out, nor even discussing ending the tax breaks that incentivize offshoring.
So, how do you think we achieve some progress?
I think that we need to teach macroeconomics to all our high school kids for a start. Most people I know can't distinguish fiscal from monetary policy, just as one example.
We need to get money out of politics. From the perspective you are addressing both parties are exactly the same. You know I don't think Bernie is the answer (TPP idiocy) but he was on the right track. McCain used to be a standard bearer until we learned that he liked his Senate seat more than America.
We are hearing into plutocracy waters. I fear it might take a Watergate -scale crisis to wake America up to the fact that it isn't our neighbors who are the problem, but the lobby class. Until then I have my own family to look after. I can try to point out what I see as obvious (do you think lobbyists are handing out dollops of cash for nothing?), but until an engaging event happens to a sufficiently educated public, it will be more of the same.
2. Germany have a relatively uniform culture and thus see transfers of wealth as helping out people like themselves. In the U.S. we hear dogwhistles from the right about African-Americans and dogwhistles from the left about rednecks. So investment in education, which used to be seen as a common good in this country, is now seen as taking money from "us" to give it to "them" (BTW this is why I want to track hate crime statistics - I'm using it as a proxy for how divided we are)
I think Germany has the advantage because they don't believe in the concept of "dog whistles"...
"Dog Whistles" are nothing more than the Left's version of the Right's "The Devil Made Me Do It"...
A way to absolve one's self of ANY responsibility.
It's not MY fault I can't get a job... Everyone else is "racist"....
Simple...
Ignore Party and vote for PEOPLE.....
I would have voted for Trump regardless, even if he ran as a Democrat....
Michale:
What three things has Trump promised that make you think he is the answer. I would vote for him and support him if I had heard anything like an answer to these issues from him - but I may have missed them.
"Dog Whistles" are nothing more than the Left's version of the Right's "The Devil Made Me Do It"...
A way to absolve one's self of ANY responsibility.
It's not MY fault I can't get a job... Everyone else is "racist"....
You are right - there is a degree of wallowing in self pity that is discouraging, and it is across the spectrum. The dogwhistles I was referring to in this case were the ones that act to divide us.
You also put a lot of words in other people's mouths. For instance, you seem to have decided that I'm going to blame Trump for all hate crimes. I'm not.
But that is EXACTLY what you said..
Here are the three things I'll judge Trump on:
1. Total number of hate crimes (measured by the FBI UCR system).
The NUMBER ONE thing you'll judge Trump on is the total number of hate crimes..
As a proxy for how divided the country is. And I'd track the same thing if Hillary was in power. How the President can bring this country together is the most important thing for us as a nation. We are fighting amongst ourselves and forgetting the common enemy: Belgium!
;)
neil
22
You skipped a reply on the first paragraph that I was looking forward to...
Anyway, if growing the pie that only a few get to eat is more important than rectifying the problems the free trade deals are causing then you are part of the problem in my opinion.
I can't support such a one sided approach.
As far as Germany goes, I would quibble about all of your points.
1. Outcompeting other countries is positive, US states competing against each other is a futile race to the bottom using counterproductive taxpayer funded incentives to corporations.
2. The "the US isn't unified, so we can't pursue economic policies that would unify us" excuse isn't convincing.
3. Success isn't guaranteed, but not trying guarantees failure.
The anti-immigrant nastiness (two thirds thanks to Obama and Hillary for Libya and Syria) will dissipate if the Turkish influx example holds true.
4. Bashing Sanders for wanting to prevent further economic carnage is being a nitwit.
"you figure out how to divide it more equitably"... and yet you ruled out insisting on equitable division prior to enactment of the TPP.
You seem to want to have it both ways.
That said, I fully agree with your last three paragraphs... except the "Bernie idiocy" bit.
A
John,
Overall, that was a good list of tools.
However, I would delete half of number four and emphasize that military options should be explored only as a last resort and then, only if there is explicit planning for what comes after the military action.
At this point, regime change should be decidedly off the table.
Neil[18]
That was actually John's list and your addition is also a good one.
The US needs to start thinking about foreign policy more in terms of building relationships and promoting good governance and less in military tactics and strategy ...
Neil,
What three things has Trump promised that make you think he is the answer.
It's not so much what he promised but rather how he is... Anyone can promise anything. If you look at it, Trump has already broken one campaign promise by not prosecuting Hillary Clinton..
I don't care... It tells me that Trump is willing to do the RIGHT thing, even if it isn't the popular thing..
1. He is a successful businessman
2. He speaks TO people, not AT them...
3. He is as despised by Republicans as he is by Democrats...
That indicates to me that Trump is going to be a great leader in the vein of Reagan...
Could I be wrong??
Absolutely....
Could I be right??
You betcha...
Neil,
As a proxy for how divided the country is.
It's a bullshit proxy completely unrelated to the job a President is doing..
If you believe it's a valid indication then how do you explain the fact that things got a LOT more divided under Obama??
Is Obama to blame???
We are fighting amongst ourselves and forgetting the common enemy: Belgium!
;)
Hhehehehehehehe Now THAT was funny!!!! :D
You see, this is the dilemma many of ya'all, not to mention the near totality of the Left Wingery is facing..
Many of the metrics that many of ya'all want to hold Trump accountable for doesn't paint a very good picture when applied to Obama....
I don't envy that position.. :D
It's a bullshit proxy completely unrelated to the job a President is doing..
OK, give me a better proxy.
1. He is a successful businessman
2. He speaks TO people, not AT them...
3. He is as despised by Republicans as he is by Democrats...
While these may work for you, they don't for me. As you say, the choice has been made, so we'll see.
Would you care to double-click into these, i.e. why do you believe he is a successful businessman, how do you define "talking to" vs. "talking at" (I really don't understand that one at ll) and why do you think he is despised by Republicans when he won as a Republican?
i.e. why do you believe he is a successful businessman,
The fact that he is worth billions and is still IN business after 30-40 years...
how do you define "talking to" vs. "talking at" (I really don't understand that one at ll)
It IS hard to define, I grant you.. I'll have to mull that one and see if I can come up with something that I can put to words..
why do you think he is despised by Republicans when he won as a Republican?
Reading CW.COM for the last year, where everyone was pointing out all the ways that "even Republicans" don't like Trump made it easy to figure that one out... :D
Trump's actions were brilliant.. He knew the odds were way way WAY against him mounting a 3rd Party run.. But he MIGHT have been able to pull it off...
But he choose to increase his odds dramatically by simply co-opting the Republican Party and used their built-in "name recognition" (so to speak) to hit the ground running..
Ever see Eddie Murphy's THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN???
Same concept.. Murphy co-opted someone's name and already had built-in name recognition...
It's a bullshit proxy completely unrelated to the job a President is doing..
OK, give me a better proxy.
I'll work on that..
But as Joshua has pointed out many times, all things being equal, you really can't hold a candidate (or a President) accountable for the actions of fanatic supporters...
Trump is no more responsible for a scumbag who is wearing an I LOVE TRUMP shirt and beats up someone than Hillary is responsible when someone wearing an I LOVE HILLARY shirt fire-bombs a GOP HQ...
Hmmmmmmmmm
A metric that indicates the divisiveness of this country....
I'll really think on it...
You skipped a reply on the first paragraph that I was looking forward to...
Sorry - I'm busy at the moment, I'll review later and post my thoughts. And I'll try to keep my opinions on Bernie to myself this time ;)
A metric that indicates the divisiveness of this country....
Or, more accurately.....
A metric that indicates the divisiveness of this country that can be tied to Trump leadership... or lack thereof..........
That's a toughie.....
I like toughies :D
John [2]
How is Trump, or any other President for that matter, going to bring manufacturing jobs back, once 3-D Printing technology really takes off? Has everybody forgotten about that?
I don't think you have much to worry about that in our lifetimes if the printing industry is an example to go by. Depending on where you draw the line for the technology, digital printing has been around and consistently improved for 40 to 60 years. After all that improvement a classic printing press will blow digital out of the water for both speed and cost by orders of magnitude, once you go over a certain volume.
So far 3D printing is really cool but a royal pain in the ass to maintain the equipment. It is also quite slow. I suspect that many people will have home hobby printers but will require uploading files to a large plant and shipped back or a local 3D printer that has industrial equipment for both speed and the need to deal with toxic materials.
3D printing will become a large and profitable niche but I think for quite some time standard manufacturing will still be the way to go for anything produced in volume. The technology will be useful for some manufacturing applications but if it's easier or cheaper to make a part out of a certain material than it is to refine/create the filament or powder of that material for a 3D printer, the former wins...
But as Joshua has pointed out many times, all things being equal, you really can't hold a candidate (or a President) accountable for the actions of fanatic supporters...
This is completely fair, but not what I was trying to do. The hate crimes could be against Trump supporters, they could be white people deliberately targeted, etc.
why do you think he is despised by Republicans when he won as a Republican?
Could it be you mean he was despised by the Republican establishment? The NRO wrote a horror story about him, Romney almost called him an ax murderer, etc.
You know my thoughts (conman and crook), but many Democrats voted for him.
Basically he was a populist. We will watch and see if he remains a populist. I suspect he will become talk a good game (e.g. claiming credit for Ford's decision and claiming it was a reversed closure when it wasn't) but if you watch his actions it will be all about making Trump richer and feeding his ego.
I hope I'm wrong. If he has to use the bully pulpit because the DC Republicans are screaming blue murder and Bernie and Donald are high-fiving I'll be surprised and impressed.
Many of the metrics that many of ya'all want to hold Trump accountable for doesn't paint a very good picture when applied to Obama....
Hmm...
1. Hate crime stats were level during Obama's 8 years - mind you this years numbers are not in
2. Economic stats are amazing for Obama
3. CO2 rates continued to increase at a steady pace.
So, fair enough, Obama gets a 1.5/3 score. Let's see how Donald does.
Re: #39...
What he said... :D
Neil,
Could it be you mean he was despised by the Republican establishment? The NRO wrote a horror story about him, Romney almost called him an ax murderer, etc.
Yes, I would agree with the distinction of ESTABLISHMENT vs Regular Party Joe...
You know my thoughts (conman and crook), but many Democrats voted for him.
Which could ALSO be explained by the Establishment vs RPJ..
I know it's a bigotry of mine, but I tend to lump any and all Party stalwarts in as "Establishment"....
I hope I'm wrong. If he has to use the bully pulpit because the DC Republicans are screaming blue murder and Bernie and Donald are high-fiving I'll be surprised and impressed.
As will I albeit less so....
1. Hate crime stats were level during Obama's 8 years - mind you this years numbers are not in
Perhaps the stats say that..
But I doubt you will find ANYONE who says that race relations are anything but way WAY worse under Obama...
Granted you are talking hate crimes and I am talking race relations, but the two usually are hand in hand... Perhaps another bigotry of mine...
Altohone: you mentioned I didn't address the first paragraph, so here we go.
In my opinion, the way you describe yourself and your economic views puts you to the left of Hillary, Obama and Cameron and more in line with Merkel... particularly the "with a strong safety net" bit and the "leadership of a country that encourages free movement of capital has an obligation to address the implications for the losers"
Interesting. I think it has been obvious since the time of the Luddites that the relentless pace of progress, coupled with capitalism, has created winners and losers. I think reaching out a helping hand is part of being a decent human, so we should vote for leaders that exemplify that and ensure that the winners help the losers. This is seldom a platform of the right, and the establishment left seems to have forgotten it, so maybe I am more like Corbyn that I thought.
The "universal wage to spread the increasing wealth across more people" belief is practically Corbyn territory.
I think Corbyn is ahead of his time on this. But it is also advocated by a growing number of people across the political spectrum (e.g. Democrat Robert Reich, VC Tim Draper, technologist Elon Musk and conservative writer Charles Murray). I think Elon Musk put it most succinctly: " we need a universal income because robots will steal all the jobs"
But I doubt you will find ANYONE who says that race relations are anything but way WAY worse under Obama...
Well you can count one person - me. I think that the African American community realized that, since it took a large number of white voters to elect Obama, that the "Bradley Effect" has gone.
I think that the black community are raising serious and justified complaints against the police, but there are some who are over egging the pudding and rabble rousing. Just as there are blind people on the other side of the spectrum who will never accept that a cop in the wrong. In an election year these incidents and the responses are amped up.
When everybody calms down, the sensible Americans of all hues will know that, while there is work to be done, we are moving in the right direction.
I mean, just a couple of decades ago it was thought in some quarters that a black football player couldn't be a quarterback because that required too much intelligence for them. Now we have a black President, and, I understand, some very good quarterbacks who don't have blue eyes ;)
As far as Germany goes, I would quibble about all of your points.
1. Outcompeting other countries is positive, US states competing against each other is a futile race to the bottom using counterproductive taxpayer funded incentives to corporations.
I'm struggling to understand why it is OK for the Germans workers to impoverish French workers, but it is not OK for Tennessee workers to impoverish Michigan ones.
If anything, it should be better that jobs stay in one country because the winners can be taxed to help the losers get back on their feet.
Michale wrote:
"And, in 100 years are so, you might have a point. :D"
And as I am sure you know, professional Futurists are fond of saying: "The future is NOW." Case in point: FANUC, is a spin off of Fuji Corporation of Japan. It builds, among other things, automated robot factories. Over 250,000 FANUC robots are installed worldwide. The company's clients include US and Japanese automobile and electronics manufacturers. Use of industrial robots has allowed companies like Panasonic in Amagasaki to run factories which produce 2 million television sets a month (mostly high end plasma LCD screens including a 103 inch model) with just 25 people.
Elizabeth wrote:
"John,
Overall, that was a good list of tools."
Thank you Elizabeth. They were the ones that I could think of. They did not reflect what I thought of the actual merits of each one.
"The US needs to start thinking about foreign policy more in terms of building relationships and promoting good governance and less in military tactics and strategy ..."
I Agree with you there. But how do we compete with China, when China does not promote good governance at all?
And getting back to neilm's point: "From blue jeans to music, movies to sports, the most impactful vision America projects is its wealth and way of life."
When China projects its wealth and way of life, particularly to countries in Asia and Africa, will that ever reach a point where it rivals America's appeal???
Michale wrote:
"The fact that he is worth billions and is still IN business after 30-40 years..."
I STILL take ISSUE With this. We DON'T know his REAL worth because he won't release his tax returns. Until he does, he could in real cold hard facts be worth, in terms of a personal fortune, anything from several billion dollars to only half a million dollars.
BashiBazouk wrote:
"I don't think you have much to worry about that in our lifetimes if the printing industry is an example to go by."
I am not so sure about that. In my own lifetime, I have seen a major American corporation that at one time was virtually everywhere, like Polaroid, pretty much completely disappear as technology moved from "instamatic" self developing photography to digital photography.
"I suspect that many people will have home hobby printers but will require uploading files to a large plant and shipped back or a local 3D printer that has industrial equipment for both speed and the need to deal with toxic materials."
But that was kind of my point. Why would you need a huge big factory of workers??? If you want a new automobile, for instance, why not have the customer order it, 3-D print it to that particular buyer's individual customization, and have just in time delivery once it is manufactured???
Also, technology is not standing still. 3-D printers in 2016 can currently produce an object at speeds that are now 200 to 500 times faster than typical 3-D printers that were available in 2014.
Michale wrote:
"But I doubt you will find ANYONE who says that race relations are anything but way WAY worse under Obama..."
That rather depends on who you ask, doesn't it??? I think you are going to get very different answers and perceptions from say, the white community versus the African American community. Or even the conservative white community versus the liberal white community.
neil
44
Thanks for the response.
Yeah, well Merkel is CDU, center right, but moderate German conservatives seem to see the wisdom in human decency you expressed, and haven't even attempted to slash the safety net there.
"the establishment left seems to have forgotten it"
Except on social issues, there really isn't an "establishment left" in the US... at least not at the federal level.
The lobbyist/Wall Street whore economics that the majority of Dems espouse certainly doesn't dwell on human decency.
Unsurprisingly, I like Corbyn, so I am glad you are OK with the comparison on that issue.
Unfortunately, universal income is still a fringe idea. It certainly isn't a viable policy that the current D and R establishment will enact to offset harms caused by free trade or technological advances.
I was disappointed it didn't even come close to passage in Switzerland, though the proponents may be guilty of shooting themselves in the foot by proposing a benefit that was too generous.
Just out of curiosity, since you railed on Trump and Bernie, but not Hillary, does that mean you didn't believe her when she flip flopped and claimed to oppose the TPP?
I've mentioned in the past that it is some of the non-trade aspects of the TPP that are also problematic, but I think supporters like you need to approach these deals like ballot referendums.
The establishment forcing them through as they've been doing (until Trump) is not good.
These trade deals need popular support, generated by PR campaigns that include honest assessments of the pros and cons, and with policies in place before the deals take effect that address the cons for the Americans who are affected.
Assuming that the cons can just be addressed at a later date when that has turned out to be an empty promise in the past is poor salesmanship at best or deception at worst.
But by embracing a more fair trade approach rather than free trade, most of the benefits can still be realized. (I wanted to clarify that it isn't trade itself that should be opposed).
A
John M [48]
"The fact that he is worth billions and is still IN business after 30-40 years..."
I STILL take ISSUE With this. We DON'T know his REAL worth because he won't release his tax returns. Until he does, he could in real cold hard facts be worth, in terms of a personal fortune, anything from several billion dollars to only half a million dollars.
Call me a skeptic, but after many years working in Wall St and the City of London, I never believe what anybody tells me about their net worth. Lots of "players" tout their assets, but it is amazing how many time the house of cards fall when there is a crisis and we discover that their liabilities exceed their assets.
The old saying is that: when the tide goes out we see who is standing naked.
Trump's reluctance to produce a basic balance sheet is very suspicious. Take a look into the history of Robert Maxwell if you want to see a conman who also flaunted his wealth. Spending money prodigiously on visible assets is not the same as having wealth.
Also, Trump is probably hiding his lack of income and charitable giving in his tax returns. They will not show his wealth.
I have a friend who is VERY wealthy, but is on Obamacare full free ride because he is incredibly cheap and only realizes enough of his income to live. He pays no tax because he doesn't convert much of his wealth to income.
I've also seen a neighbor who drove around in Porsches go bankrupt and lose his wife, who then let everybody know that he was living off leverage from Daddy's money.
Just out of curiosity, since you railed on Trump and Bernie, but not Hillary, does that mean you didn't believe her when she flip flopped and claimed to oppose the TPP?
Not one word of it. I suspected she would either engineer Obama to ratify it during the lame duck session with a compliant congress (the Republicans want it, they just didn't want to give Obama credit), or she would turn it into an intellectual property rights deal - which I think will still happen.
If you see our Asian trade envoy shuttling around the Pacific Rim in the next few years and Trump et al. railing on about intellectual property rights, prepare for TPP #2. I can only hope.
neil
46
Countries are supposed to look out for the interests of their own first.
But corporations pitting workers in one state against those in another causes a misallocation of scarce resources. Those tax breaks should be going to companies developing new technologies and jobs, not stealing jobs from their fellow citizens and suppressing wages.
The current practice is good for the corporations but bad for the country, bad for state budgets, and bad for workers.
A
I was disappointed it didn't even come close to passage in Switzerland, though the proponents may be guilty of shooting themselves in the foot by proposing a benefit that was too generous.
I agree. They should have started small with a five year renewal. If that worked then they could have ramped it up.
neil
53
Well, hoping a politician is lying is one of the safer bets to make.
But it's still sad.
A
But by embracing a more fair trade approach rather than free trade, most of the benefits can still be realized. (I wanted to clarify that it isn't trade itself that should be opposed).
If you remember the buzz Bill Clinton generated about the passage of NAFTA you can get a good idea of what can be done to make a trade deal appeal to the masses. Perot was railing on about "a giant sucking sound of all of our manufacturing jobs moving to Mexico" and he was right. But the combined wealth and the individual wealth of the U.S., Canada and Mexico is higher because of the deal.
I'd really like to separate trade deals from inequality. Why the two are conflated is beyond me. As I said before, Capitalism + Progress = Winners and Losers - trade deals are one mechanism of Capitalism, but wealth transfers are far more important and we are allowing another round of tax cuts for the already wealthy at the expense of either the deficit or poor people or both go unchallenged.
The Republicans are hooting at the fact that they can get credit for helping the little guy by canceling TPP when openly announcing another big round of tax cuts. That is an easy deal for them to make. They an do TPP2 later under another name - definitely not a "Free Trade Agreement" however.
I STILL take ISSUE With this. We DON'T know his REAL worth because he won't release his tax returns. Until he does, he could in real cold hard facts be worth, in terms of a personal fortune, anything from several billion dollars to only half a million dollars.
They exact amount is actually not relevant.. I am a "successful" businessman and I have maybe $15 to my name..
The fact that he is still IN business is the most compelling argument..
I am sure I don't have to tell you that success is measured in many many ways that have nothing to do with money...
That rather depends on who you ask, doesn't it???
No, it really doesn't...
You find me ANYONE who says that race relations are better under Obama.....
The current practice is good for the corporations but bad for the country, bad for state budgets, and bad for workers.
True. But I think the Germans have used monetary policy to achieve the same thing in Europe.
Have you read "And The Weak Suffer What They Must" by Yanis Varoufakis (of Greek Finance Ministry fame).
Excellent read.
You find me ANYONE who says that race relations are better under Obama.....
How about I find you millions:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/27/key-takeaways-race-and-inequality/
No, it really doesn't...
You find me ANYONE who says that race relations are better under Obama.....
AND have facts to back it up... :D
You find me ANYONE who says that race relations are better under Obama.....
AND have facts to back it up... :D
Oh, that is easy - if you won't accept the Pew Research then exmplain why, or we simply spin the question around:
You find me ANYONE who says that race relations are worse under Obama.....
AND have facts to back it up... :D
How about I find you millions:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/27/key-takeaways-race-and-inequality/
About six-in-ten blacks (61%) say race relations are generally bad, while about equal shares of whites say race relations are good as say they’re bad.
OK, you can find SOME mor.... er.. people who say race relations are better...
But they have no facts to back it up....
So, let me clarify..
There are absolutely NO FACTS to support the claim that race relations are better under Obama...
There are a plethora of facts to show that race relations are much worse under Obama....
You find me ANYONE who says that race relations are worse under Obama.....
AND have facts to back it up... :D
Compare the number of race riots pre Obama to the number of race riots during Obama's presidency...
There are a plethora of facts to show that race relations are much worse under Obama....
Please list them with links.
Democrats are finally realizing the cold hard facts..
Dems wonder if 'identity politics' did them in
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dem-shock-identity-politics-killed-them/article/2607975
Anytime you stir up hate from one group of Americans against another group of Americans, it never ends well for the stirrer'ers...
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=race+riots+under+Obama
Yes, I am being lazy.. It's dinner time and wifey time..
If you like, we can explore this further tomorrow after my cardio appt..
BP is down to 171 over 80!!! Woot!!! :D
Anytime you stir up hate from one group of Americans against another group of Americans, it never ends well for the stirrer'ers...
This comment might just come back to bite you in the butt.
neil
57
Hmmm... I'm not so sure Bill Clinton ever convinced a majority to support the Republican trade deal he initially rejected.
"But the combined wealth and the individual wealth of the U.S., Canada and Mexico is higher because of the deal.
I'd really like to separate trade deals from inequality."
The wealth generated by these deals disproportionately goes to the wealthy few and the pain is felt by many, so the issues are linked.
You are correct it's far from the biggest or only cause of inequality though.
"The country will be richer" isn't going to sell these deals, and won't reassure those who lose their jobs.
You aren't wrong about tax cuts for the rich or that the Repubs will probably repackage the deal... unless Dems beat them to it.
A
neil
60
Haven't read it.
Christmas is coming though... hint hint.
A
neil
57 again
Trade and offshoring are also directly linked to the decline in the strength of unions, and that is a major factor in increased inequality.
It's a safe bet that many offshored businesses that weren't made significantly more profitable were executed specifically to serve the anti-union ideology of the owners of those businesses.
It's been a crusade of sorts.
A
The wealth generated by these deals disproportionately goes to the wealthy few and the pain is felt by many, so the issues are linked.
Don has his "Voucher Vendetta" movement that makes a lot of sense, but he is finding that apathy is an American gold medal event. I think we need to pick something that is anti-elitist, requires no effort except anger (playing to our strengths here ;) and would be a real revolution for the masses:
Tracking the Gini co-efficient. If this went viral and became a simple measure for our leaders, the impact would be phenomenal.
It is easy to explain:
100 means Donald Trump or George Soros (pick your person of hate) has all the money.
0 means everybody has exactly the same.
35-40 means there is basic equality but sufficient incentive in the system that everybody wants to work hard.
35-40 is where the Gini was when Trump claimed America was great (1950 to early 1970s)
Today we are at 47 and rising - it is getting too high for most of us to thrive - we need the Gini turned down.
What are you going to do about it Donald? Bernie? Hillary? Kayne (I'm thinking 202 here ;)
Trade and offshoring are also directly linked to the decline in the strength of unions, and that is a major factor in increased inequality.
I completely agree. The balance of power between labor and capital has swung strongly to capital. There was an interview with a union leader in Ohio who was lamenting that all his union members were pro Trump because 'he told it like it is'. This guy was at his wits end. He tried to explain that Trump was very much in favor of 'right to work' laws but he couldn't get thru to the guys that their wages were going to be undercut by migrant workers. They'll learn the hard way.
It is the old saying - if you insist on learning by experience you learn the painful way: you get the test first and the lesson afterwards.
The Gini co-efficient:
http://www.the-crises.com/income-inequality-in-the-us-1/
Stop blaming trade agreements. Start asking about wealth transfers.
John,
When China projects its wealth and way of life, particularly to countries in Asia and Africa, will that ever reach a point where it rivals America's appeal???
I don't think so. Which is why I don't think China will ever reach the point of being a true superpower in every sense of the word. It may want to lead the world but I don't think the world will follow its example.
My absolute favourite Biden phrase is that America leads most effectively when it leads not only - or even primarily - by the example of its power but also by the power of its example.
China has a very, very long way to go before it can hope to rival the promise of America.
JohnM [2] -
Don't have time to answer all of these, but RE: self-driving trucks, the scariest article on the ecnoomy I think I read this year was:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-santens/self-driving-trucks-are-going-to-hit-us_b_7308874.html
I bookmarked it because it was so frightening -- all the secondary and tertiary effects.
I encourage everyone to read it, especially everyone who has ever made a cross-country drive themselves and knows the Interstate system well...
Big changes may be a-comin'.
-CW
Anytime you stir up hate from one group of Americans against another group of Americans, it never ends well for the stirrer'ers...
This comment might just come back to bite you in the butt.
Or be eerily prescient... :D
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/18/opinions/end-of-liberal-era-gardiner-opinion/
Actually, I think the BIGGER endangered species is going to be an American Liberal... :D
Actually, I think the BIGGER endangered species is going to be an American Liberal... :D
Cool your jets. There is a backlash against the establishment in a small part of he country, that by a statistical fluke allowed a candidate that lost the popular vote by 1.8M win the electoral college.
The Republicans lost ground in the Senate and the House. Progressive ballot measures (anti-gun, pro-MJ) won all over the country, for the second time in two years.
If the winner had been Romney or Romney-like the handwringing wouldn't be as pronounced. Trump is an obvious conman and crook. By picking people like Sessions, bringing his kids into the game and refusing to separate his business activities when he is meant to be running the country, he is sowing the seeds of his failure - and he has nobody to blame but himself.
Elizabeth:
I don't think so. Which is why I don't think China will ever reach the point of being a true superpower in every sense of the word. It may want to lead the world but I don't think the world will follow its example.
I think you are probably right, but to me, it isn't as clean cut as I'd like. This week's Economist had an interesting article.
Here is a summary I wrote for another forum (sorry in advance to the Bernie supporters):
TPP Loses, RECP Wins. China Delighted
Well thanks to the Sanderistas and the Trumptons, the TPP is dead and the Chinese won. China's RECP (their version of the TPP), which includes India and Japan as well as a slew of Pacific Rim nations (but not the US just as the TPP didn't include China) is being pushed by President Xi has he runs a victory lap around South America this week.
Frankly I can't blame other countries for allowing China to take the leadership role since America walked away from a very good deal for everybody and is now avowedly "America First" - which implies that any deal will be one sided against them, and China has already been distributing sweetheart loans to the region to try to wrest some power away from the US.
Not to worry, we'll get a Wall, immigration controls, and Muslim registries to offer our vision of World leadership instead.
The dumb thing is that the political combination that could have pushed the TPP through and helped our businesses was Obama plus a Republican Congress. The Republicans insistence that Obama get only obstruction will be a headwind for decades.
<I.The Republicans lost ground in the Senate and the House. Progressive ballot measures (anti-gun, pro-MJ) won all over the country, for the second time in two years.
That's one way to spin it..
Another way is that the Republicans didn't lose any real power in the House or Senate, made MASSIVE gains in State governorships and state legislatures and is in the politically STRONGEST position it has been in over a century...
:D
I won't begrudge you your cherry picking of a silver lining here and there... :D Other than to point it out... :D
Trump is an obvious conman and crook.
Obvious... :D
A conman and crook that fooled tens of millions of Obama voters.... :D
Let's employ Occam's Razor on that, eh??
By picking people like Sessions,
You mean the guy who chased down and won Death Penalty cases against the KKK and then followed thru to make sure that the death part of Death Penalty took??
he is sowing the seeds of his failure - and he has nobody to blame but himself.
You may be right...
You also may be wrong....
That's what makes all of this so exciting...
But, back to the American Liberal..
I don't think we'll see another Democrat House, Senate or Presidency in our life-time..
The Democratic Party has ceased to be a viable entity for at least another 50 years...
And another post:
Xi Angles for More Power
The ominous swing of power from the US to China continues. Not satisfied with just capitalizing on China's trade strengths, Chinese President Xi gave us his first view of China's strategy for World leadership this week in Brazil. Positioning himself as the stable leader that Trump isn't, he is on a path that could take Trump's replacement decades to reverse.
Surely if there are hints at Chinese led military alliances in the future even the sycophant is Republican Party will wake up and throw Trump under the bus. Trump might not know what he is doing, and his clown car of hawks think they can bully their way through anything (look how that worked out in Iraq the last time we have an idiot in the White House), but let's hope that in the next two years the adult part of the Republican Party can talk some sense into the senseless.
conman and crook that fooled tens of millions of Obama voters.... :D
And you. Look at Manhattan, where they have known Trump for decades. He got 10% of the vote.
!0%.
And you. Look at Manhattan, where they have known Trump for decades. He got 10% of the vote.
The American Liberal owns Manhattan..
That's like me bragging that Hillary lost Texas... :D
Surely if there are hints at Chinese led military alliances in the future even the sycophant is Republican Party will wake up and throw Trump under the bus. Trump might not know what he is doing, and his clown car of hawks think they can bully their way through anything (look how that worked out in Iraq the last time we have an idiot in the White House),
Obama maybe a moron, but he is not an idiot.. :D
Bush won the Iraq war.. It was Obama's premature pull-out that made Iraq the shithole it is today... Obama *AND* Biden said it themselves.. Iraq was a stable democracy.. THEN the US pulled out too soon..
How Iraq is today is a direct result of Obama's actions..
Not Bush's...
As for China....
It may preen and posture... But China's government is not a threat to the US socially or economically..
China is only a military threat...
And Trump and Trump's (hope, hope) SecDef are well positioned with the correct mindset to deal with any military threat China represents.....
Neil,
I hope that the promise of America is strong enough to withstand Trump(ism).
I have to admit now that I'm not as sure that it is as I was during the campaign.
The Republicans insistence that Obama get only obstruction will be a headwind for decades.
Very true.
As for the TPP, I think the impact on US businesses, one way or the other, would be next to negligible as compared to the positive impacts on many of the nations involved, such as Vietnam. The impact on the bigger picture and how the US leads the world, or not, is huge.
Michale,
Who are you hoping will be SecDef?
Bush won the Iraq war.. It was Obama's premature pull-out that made Iraq the shithole it is today... Obama *AND* Biden said it themselves.. Iraq was a stable democracy.. THEN the US pulled out too soon..How Iraq is today is a direct result of Obama's actions..
That is something you say to make yourself feel better because it has no basis in reality.
Iraq's problems today are a direct result of Iraq's inability to govern itself.
The American Liberal owns Manhattan..
That's like me bragging that Hillary lost Texas... :D
Well let's have a look at that:
Texas
2012: Romney: 57%
2016: Trump: 52% - dropped 5%
Manhattan
2012: Romney: 36%
2016: Trump: 10% - dropped 26%
Oops.
I hope that the promise of America is strong enough to withstand Trump(ism).
I'm sure it is. But China is the World's largest economy now by some measures, or will be soon by others. Currently China is spending internally but if it switches to a more aggressive military build up, it will be difficult for us to compete.
China does not have hundreds of venal politicians that force the Pentagon to waste money on battlefield tanks that immediately go into storage in the desert. They don't have $50 toilet seats and the maintenance costs of 10 massive aircraft carrier groups, etc.
Given that the next wars will not be fought with conventional weapons, but with cyber attacks, drones, etc. China could invest in 21st Century weapons while we spend too much of our budget on 20th Century museum pieces.
If the Pentagon was given a block grant we would be much better off. But then congressmen and women wouldn't be able to boast about how they kept those jobs building WW2 style weapons. How likely do you think tht is? ;)
The best and biggest economy does not a superpower make.
At least, not in my book! :)
If the Pentagon was given a block grant we would be much better off. But then congressmen and women wouldn't be able to boast about how they kept those jobs building WW2 style weapons. How likely do you think tht is? ;)
I think there is and always has been too much focus on what the Pentagon's budget should be and not nearly enough attention being paid to how ridiculously under-resourced the State Department is.
The promise of American will be in much better shape and more likely to withstand Trump and the like if there was something like parity between the State Department and Pentagon budgets. I think that is an important discussion to have.
I think there is and always has been too much focus on what the Pentagon's budget should be and not nearly enough attention being paid to how ridiculously under-resourced the State Department is.
I think we could half our military budget, let the Pentagon decide how to keep America safe and project power, and have a much more effective military.
Basically the military in its current incarnation is a jobs program.
Whatever you cut from the Pentagon should go to the State Department.
What I'm saying here is that the promotion of good governance - some would call it "nation-building" can give you a better bang for your buck than any major military operation might ...
To elaborate a bit, the US has proven to be absolutely dismal at nation-building in the decades since the Marshall plan.
But, that's not a good reason to abandon the tool altogether. It is an excellent reason to adequately resource the State Department.
Re: State Department
If we took 25% of the military budget (drop a couple of programs that nobody wants anyway and mothball a couple of carrier fleets and we are on our way) we could fund democratic elections for any eligible country hat asks for our help (e.g. Myanmar, Congo, not Germany).
Few would take us up to start with, but with the open offer, populations would start to ask why American election officials aren't funding and monitoring the process.
We could also update our own system to ensure we don't get claims like the current one that Trump's Russian friends rigged the count in MI, WI, etc.
The State Department has a broad and deep area of responsibility, not the least of which is conflict resolution.
I'm not sure most people even know the full scope of the critical role the State Department does play, should play or could play as part of America's global leadership role.
If we drop a bomb it is news all over the world. If we negotiate a resolution of an issue that might be twice as important, nobody cares.
So, you're saying that ... what are you saying, exactly??
Nobody cares about the Iran nuclear deal??
Liz,
Who are you hoping will be SecDef?
“I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”
-General James Mattis
Our (hopefully) soon to be SecDef...
I like this guy! :D
More Quotes from General James "Mad Dog" Mattis...
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
“You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.”
“Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”
“No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.”
"Demonstrate to the world there is ‘No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy’ than a U.S. Marine.”
I *REALLY* like this guy!!!
-http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/11/18/ftp416/#comment-88986
Texas
2012: Romney: 57%
2016: Trump: 52% - dropped 5%
Manhattan
2012: Romney: 36%
2016: Trump: 10% - dropped 26%
Comparing Romney to Trump is like comparing Obama to Charlie Brown..
It's comparing Apples and Eskimos...
If we took 25% of the military budget (drop a couple of programs that nobody wants anyway and mothball a couple of carrier fleets and we are on our way) we could fund democratic elections for any eligible country hat asks for our help (e.g. Myanmar, Congo, not Germany).
Under your conditions, countries COULDN'T ask for help from the US..
Because the US would be subordinate to Russia or China
Mothball a couple carrier fleets!?? Are you frakin' KIDDING me!???
The US has 11 fleets (Carrier Battle Groups (CVBGs)) of which 4 are always at sea and 7 are in various stages of refit/upgrade/reserve at any given time..
That may SEEM like an excessive amount to those that don't know the military, but it's the CVBGs that allow the US to project military power...
Just because we have had a POTUS for the last 8 years who is timid about use of conventional forces doesn't mean those forces are useless....
Comparing Romney to Trump is like comparing Obama to Charlie Brown..
Yet Romney beat Trump just about everywhere except for a few numerically intricate counties.
Nobody cares about the Iran nuclear deal??
Fair enough, but military action, for the most part, is far more likely to be headline news than State Department activities.
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
What an arsehole.
Under your conditions, countries COULDN'T ask for help from the US..
Because the US would be subordinate to Russia or China
Mothball a couple carrier fleets!?? Are you frakin' KIDDING me!???
The US has 11 fleets (Carrier Battle Groups (CVBGs)) of which 4 are always at sea and 7 are in various stages of refit/upgrade/reserve at any given time..
That may SEEM like an excessive amount to those that don't know the military, but it's the CVBGs that allow the US to project military power...
Just because we have had a POTUS for the last 8 years who is timid about use of conventional forces doesn't mean those forces are useless....
Allow me to rephrase...
Mothballing ANY CVBG is inadvisable as it lessons the US's ability to project military power...
Such projection is what keeps countries like Russia and China and lesser actors in check...
While it's entirely POSSIBLE that we could mothball a few CVBGs and suffer no ill effects, such an act would create a greater possibility of afore mentioned hostile actors to be emboldened to take steps that might A> be against the best interests of the US and B> if their actions were actively co-ordinated, might be steps that the US would be ill-equipped to handle...
For these reasons and many others, standing down any weapons system that is still viable and still maintains a credible threat and deterrence is ill-advised...
What an arsehole.
They best soldiers usually are... :D
Take me for example... :D
"Demonstrate to the world there is ‘No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy’ than a U.S. Marine.”
You have no idea how this sort of jingoism plays in the rest of the world?
Basically everybody hates the winning team. Most of the people who support the winning team don't understand why, and think that if they are the good guys it'll all be OK.
This makes everybody hate the winning team more because they have to generate reasons why they are assholes.
Mattis is a walking, talking gold mine for these people.
Think about how much you hate the elites Michale. The people who have the fancy educations, take European vacations, live in the parts of the country that are too expensive for ordinary people to contemplate.
Now imagine somebody who represents all that money telling you to like them or else.
That is what clowns like Mattis project to the rest of the world when they strut around saying things like you listed.
That may SEEM like an excessive amount to those that don't know the military, but it's the CVBGs that allow the US to project military power...
Of course they say that. What military ever says: don't give me any more, I've got enough.
You have no idea how this sort of jingoism plays in the rest of the world?
Oh.. I have an idea...
I just don't care... :D
You have no idea how this sort of jingoism plays in the rest of the world?
Oh.. I have an idea...
I just don't care... :D
You should, because it puts our soldiers at risk unnecessarily.
Roosevelt understood this: "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
Mattis is: "Look at my big stick, I can hit you with it, but you should like me". As I said, an arsehole.
Basically everybody hates the winning team.
Of course.. Hence all the protests against Trump... :D
Most of the people who support the winning team don't understand why, and think that if they are the good guys it'll all be OK.
We do understand why...
And, if the shit hits the fan, it WILL all be OK..
And then whose who DON'T support the winning team will understand it as well..
That is what clowns like Mattis project to the rest of the world when they strut around saying things like you listed.
General Mattis doesn't represent all the elites.. That's my point...
He represents the "let's get things done" people who roll up their sleeves and gets things done..
He is a doer.. Those from the last 8 years are all great at THEORY.....
No one is talking about forcing anyone to LIKE the US...
Mattis doesn't give a rat's ass if anyone LIKES him or LIKES the US or not...
But if you FUCK with the US, that is where the problems will start..
No one has to LIKE the US..
They just have to stop KILLING Americans or else there will be hell to pay...
LIKE or NOT LIKE has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything...
General Mattis doesn't represent all the elites.. That's my point...
You are missing the simple analogy. Mattis represents the "winners", i.e. the U.S. of A.
When he mouths off, he makes us all look like the asshole he is.
He is going to make a great SecDef and I hope Trump shows the wisdom in selecting him...
When he mouths off, he makes us all look like the asshole he is.
That's your opinion.. And it's also your opinion that he is looking like an asshole..
But, to a SOLDIER.....
Someone like Mattis is the second coming... And such reverence is well-earned....
He's a Schwarzkopf and a MacArthur all rolled into one.. :D
They just have to stop KILLING Americans or else there will be hell to pay...
You have just made Americans around the world a lot less safe. It is beyond you to understand this obviously, but every time that some creep wants to rile up Mattis and make America look impotent they can call his bluff.
What is he, Trump, etc. going to do? What exactly is "hell to pay"? Are you going to kill innocent people to "teach them a lesson"? That is exactly what they want you to do.
He is setting us all up for humiliation.
Someone like Mattis is the second coming... And such reverence is well-earned....
Someone like Mattis has a loose mouth. That gets people hurt. The military is meant to be run by adults, not blowhards. Empty threats, and that is all they are, just make things worse.
Look at N. Korea and Iran. Neither had any nuclear program going. We invade Iraq over BS and mouth off about the "axis of evil". Now we have a problem with Iran, who are fighting among themselves about whether to drop out of the agreement we put in place because of Trump shot his mouth off.
N. Korea is a fully loaded Nuclear power with a long range missile program going full blast and no money. How much do you think they could get for a long range, nuclear tipped missile that can hit the East Coast in 10 years?
Ya'all have to understand... It's a Whole New World...
There won't be any Apology Tour...
There won't be any bowing or kow-towing...
The time of groveling and hand-wringing is over...
It's going to be the greatest hits of the 80s that culminated in the destruction of the Soviet Union....
Jump on board.... :D
It is a new world. There are no conventional forces that we have to face in the battlefield. Our nation state enemies will use cyber warfare to cripple our infrastructure if they want to hit us. We can hit back, but we have a lot more to lose.
The forces the military face are like ISIS. We can't drop an army in there because they are protecting themselves with civilians. We need to be smart. Mattis is talking tough about last century's military options. They aren't on the table for the most part any longer.
We need to be the smart people, not the blowhards, no matter how emotional it makes you feel.
Someone like Mattis has a loose mouth. That gets people hurt. The military is meant to be run by adults, not blowhards. Empty threats, and that is all they are, just make things worse.
I respect that opinion.. But it's an opinion borne of ignorance..
Look at N. Korea and Iran. Neither had any nuclear program going. We invade Iraq over BS and mouth off about the "axis of evil". Now we have a problem with Iran,
We have had a "problem" with Iran since the late 70s... Has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2003 invasion of Iraq...
N. Korea is a fully loaded Nuclear power with a long range missile program going full blast and no money. How much do you think they could get for a long range, nuclear tipped missile that can hit the East Coast in 10 years?
And, if we had had another Democrat in office, that would be a concern...
But with Trump as POTUS and Mattis as SecDef??
I ain't worried one bit..
He is setting us all up for humiliation.
Yea, I understand why you would think that..
But it's an opinion borne of ignorance and wish-ful thinking...
If General Mad Dog Mattis appears to be so gung ho, unhinged and ready to use his big stick..
Well, that's EXACTLY what General Mattis *WANTS* the enemy to think...
Our allies will feel safe and our enemies will feel fear...
Probably for the first time since 2008..... :D
There won't be any Apology Tour..
There won't be any bowing or kow-towing...
The time of groveling and hand-wringing is over...
You are bouncing around in your little right wing bubble. With Trump and Mattis mouthing off, it is more likely that we are going to be humiliated.
We need to be the smart people, not the blowhards, no matter how emotional it makes you feel.
You don't get to be a 4-Star General by being dumb...
Fair enough, but military action, for the most part, is far more likely to be headline news than State Department activities.
Is that an argument in favour of not properly funding the State Department?
I might like Mattis, too. :)
Well, that's EXACTLY what General Mattis *WANTS* the enemy to think...
Just as well Mattis is reminding everybody that our military is bigger than everybody else's. I'm sure they all forgot.
We don't need to rub people's noses in the ground to prove we are not to be messed with. They already know. All that does is make immature clowns like Mattis feel good.
I don't want Mattis or his emotionally stunted fanboys to feel good. I want an effective military that doesn't provoke trouble needlessly. On that basis, everything you posted about Mattis makes him useless at his job.
I can see why Trump likes him though. Another playground bully that doesn't understand the new rules and thinks that elementary school taunts will work in the world of real men. Pathetic.
You don't get to be a 4-Star General by being dumb...
You have far too much faith in the elites.
Is that an argument in favour of not properly funding the State Department?
No, it is an explanation why we put too much money into hard power and not enough into soft power.
Well, something really needs to be done about that, Neil.
I had hoped that Secretary Clinton would have made this a big part of her campaign ... for more reasons than one ...
I had hoped that Secretary Clinton would have made this a big part of her campaign ... for more reasons than one ...
Adopting adult proposals, sadly, is seldom a vote winner. And we are well past the point where reasonable voices can be heard. We will have to suffer blowhard leaders for a while until we learn why letting emotional cripples who appeal to base instincts are a bad idea. Let's hope they don't do too much damage in the interim.
Doesn't that sound a tad defeatist?
Doesn't that sound a tad defeatist?
Brexit.
Trump.
Rise of the AfD.
Le Pen.
It is silly season. In a democracy you sometimes just need to wait it out.
That's not how I roll ... :)
... unless, of course, you are strategizing while you're "waiting it out" ...
That's not how I roll ... :)
Good for you.
Heh.
... unless, of course, you are strategizing while you're "waiting it out" ...
Of course.
Well, okay then ...
You are bouncing around in your little right wing bubble. With Trump and Mattis mouthing off, it is more likely that we are going to be humiliated.
Again, I understand why you would say that..
I will even grant you that you MIGHT be right..
But, what's MORE likely to happen, is that countries like Iran and NK, etc etc will not want to tweak the tail of the tiger..
Because they have NO PLAN in place for dealing with the teeth of the tiger...
You don't get to be a 4-Star General by being dumb...
You have far too much faith in the elites.
On the contrary.. I have PERFECT faith in the elites.. To try and hoodwink the masses and ONLY be concerned about their own agenda...
And they lost..
And people like Trump and Mattis are now in charge...
We don't need to rub people's noses in the ground to prove we are not to be messed with. They already know.
Apparently not.... Since we have bad actors coming out of the woodwork...
All that does is make immature clowns like Mattis feel good.
Again, you don't get to be a US Marine 4 Star General by either being immature OR a clown...
And what's wrong with giving Americans a little pride?? Gods know they sure could use it after being embarrassed by Obama time and time again...
Brexit.
Trump.
Rise of the AfD.
Le Pen.
It is silly season.
Or, more accurately, a correction...
You can't discard a possibility just because you don't happen to like it...
The globalists/elitests/corporatists are getting their come-uppance...
They were moving too far too fast and the Joe and Jane Sixpacks of the world said...
"WHOOAAAAA!!! WAIT A MINUTE!!!!"
-Ralph Macchio, MY COUSIN VINNY
When it comes to the Defense Department, we don't need a manager or a CEO...
We need a WARRIOR.....
When it comes to the Defense Department, we don't need a manager or a CEO...
We need a WARRIOR.....
Yes. A smart warrior who understands power. Not a blowhard who talks us into corners and opens us up to humiliation.
Not a blowhard who talks us into corners and opens us up to humiliation.
As I said and you have yet to refute....
You don't get to be a US Marine Corp 4-Star General by being a "blow hard"....
You must have a very low estimation of our US military men and women....
Yes. A smart warrior who understands power.
Power perceived is power achieved...
You must have a very low estimation of our US military men and women....
Or maybe the only ones who don't support your Party agenda...
Many... SOME of ya'all did the same thing with FBI Director Comey..
He was the epitome of integrity.. Until he went against Hillary...
Then he was Lucifer incarnate....
The clearest consensus inside the transition team is for Gen. Mattis, a former war commander who has long voiced concerns about the security threat posed by Iran. He met with Mr. Trump on Saturday.
“He is the real deal,” Mr. Trump told reporters about Mr. Mattis after the meeting. “He is just a brilliant, wonderful man. What a career.”
Gen. Mattis, who retired after 43 years in the Marines and who rose to command all U.S. forces in the Middle East, would bring to the job a view of the international fight against extremism markedly different from that of the Obama administration. He has said the U.S. should pledge to put combat forces into the fight if necessary to defeat militants.
Definitely not a "clown" or a "blow hard" or "immature"......
Here is a man who has been there and done that when it comes to facing the enemy....
If he said all the things you attribute to him then he should be embarrassed.
'Sides...
Considering the dressing down General Mattis gave Lt Col Allen West, I would have thought that Mad Dog Mattis would be a Left Wing hero... :D
If he said all the things you attribute to him then he should be embarrassed.
According to my son (a US Marine) General Mattis DID say all those things...
And I am sure much much more.. :D
Why? Is he trying to be a tough guy? The real tough guys don't need to shoot their mouths off.
We've got a team with zero military experience in the White House (or whereever Trump is going to be) and a loose cannon running the military. What could possibly go wrong?
Gen. Mattis, who retired after 43 years in the Marines and who rose to command all U.S. forces in the Middle East, would bring to the job a view of the international fight against extremism markedly different from that of the Obama administration. He has said the U.S. should pledge to put combat forces into the fight if necessary to defeat militants.
OK, what is that view? This is a repeat of the same story. Trump had a plan to beat ISIS - where is it? Now we have somebody who has a better plan that the current military leaders. What is it?
All I'm hearing is boasting. How about something concrete. Chest thumping is puerile and usually counter productive. How about a plan, with measurable goals, and an explanation why the current plan isn't working and why this one will.
God this is so pathetic.
He has said the U.S. should pledge to put combat forces into the fight if necessary to defeat militants.
We already have combat forces in the fight. Can't he read the news? Does he want a full blown ground force? Does he have permission from Iraq? What if they say no thanks? After Trump boasting about how he is going to steal their oil I can hardly expect open arms. If they say no is he going to trot off with his tail between his legs and make us look like idiots? Is he going to forcibly invade? This is asinine.
OK, so Mattis isn't the clown Michale is making him out to be. He at least understands that waterboarding is useless.
Although he said "it is fun to shoot some people". Wow!
It sounds simple, but in politics, one must always try to avoid doing what your opponents want you to do.
If I, as a partisan Republican, could somehow collectively hypnotize the Democrats and have them do my bidding, here is what I would have them do to continue their march into the abyss.
I would tell the Democrats to keep Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as their House minority leader. More of the same from her would be great.
I would order them to elect a real leftist, such as uhh . . . Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who was a Bernie Sanders supporter and who has been associated with both the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Louis Farrakhan.
And, while they are at it, it wouldn’t hurt for the Democrats to exaggerate the rise in the number of hate crimes during a Donald Trump presidency while ignoring the increase in the murder rate as a result of the Democrats’ anti-police crusades and shielding local, Democrat-led governments from any accountability.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/11/21/the-democrats-cant-stop-digging/?utm_term=.7badb1808afb
Heh :D
Although he said "it is fun to shoot some people". Wow!
It depends on the people.. :D
OK, so Mattis isn't the clown Michale is making him out to be
*I* wasn't "making him out" to be a clown... That was all you, my friend.. :D
We've got a team with zero military experience in the White House
Yea, just like Obama in 2008.. You didn't have a problem with that then, eh?? :D
Why? Is he trying to be a tough guy? The real tough guys don't need to shoot their mouths off.
How do you know?? Because you read it on HuffPoop??
General Mattis doesn't have to *TRY* and be a tough guy..
His bona fides are well-established on the field of battle....
Gen. Mike Hagee, the commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, issued a statement of regret about Mattis’ remarks
Gen. Mike Hagee, the commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, issued a statement of regret about Mattis’ remark
It was 11 years ago AND it was for a single "it's fun to shoot people" comment which was proper for the context....
In other words, it's a nothing burger...
AND the whiners who complained was a muslim extremist group that supports the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah...
A HUGE nothing burger....
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/911-mastermind-al-qaeda-to-use-immigration-outbreeding-non-muslims-to-crush-u.s./article/2608083
Yup, yup, yup.....