Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Trump's Speech to Congress >

Trump's Speech to Congress

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Trump's Speech to Congress

Old 03-02-2017, 09:51 AM
  #21  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,361
Default

Alsatian, I think your conjecture is quite logical, extremely probable and well thought out and written. It's how pols do business. I agree to a point about Trump's lesser qualities but would note those qualities always seemed to be displayed when he is shining the light on "brain dead arrangements" and other things that do not help the American people. It's kind of an odd conundrum, much like a storm can do a lot of damage but often brings much needed rain.

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse
It's not the government's job to create jobs. Every job the government create costs 2x the face value at best. Their job is to foster a good environment to make it happen. What Trump is doing is straddling the fence. In the end, the family jewels get crushed.
I agree with the emboldened part above. I think that is where Obama made a lot (but certainly not all) of his mistakes. After 8 years, Obama spent a whole lot of money on wasteful projects like wind and solar power but also on other things that enriched certain wall street types as well. In short, Obama was guilty of everything he's accused both bushes, Reagan and all the Republicans of--wasting money on corporate interests. Except that Obama wasted more money on it than all of the Republicans combined.

Trump is talking about infrastructure rebuilding, some with public money and some with private. I don't disagree with that. Government is responsible for building infrastructure and paying for it. I don't think we need to create millions of new fed employees to do that but I get the impression Trump isn't talking about creating new fed employees and instead wants to contract it out, like he did as a businessman.

Between the infrastructure and military rebuilds, those expenditures can help jump start the economy. Removing lots of foolish red tape can also help. Finishing the Keystone pipeline can help as well (not really any fed spending there). And redoing our corporate tax structure can help too. All of this and the other things Trump has spoken about in concert can help restart our economy and enable the private sector to create new and good jobs because there will be money to be made.

Obama never got beyond spending more fed money on foolish and wasteful projects. Even now he's funneling money and support to protests instead of trying to help anybody. Not only is Obama a racist but he's also pathetically incapable and willfully opposed to changing anybody's life for the better. He may have used prettier words than Trump but Obama was even more offensive and divisive.

And one last thing FM. You want absolutes in government in a system that was specifically designed to encourage a middle ground solution to political issues. What you call fence straddling (family jewels and all) is merely seeking some common ground and enabling more than 51% of a population to have an opportunity to get behind something politically. The hard core Dems and Libs won't but there are a lot of Center-Left people who will recognize Trump's speech and offer for what it was--an opportunity to reach consensus and and acceptable solutions to so many of our problems.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 03-02-2017, 10:36 AM
  #22  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 5,999
Default

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
It's not the government's job to create jobs. Every job the government create costs 2x the face value at best. Their job is to foster a good eviroment to make it happen. What Trump is doing is straddling the fence. In the end, the family jewels get crushed.

I don't disagree with that, but on the other hand I don't think Trump is doing this. When he has discussions with companies -- Softbank, Intel, Ford, Chrysler, GM, DOW -- he isn't creating government jobs. I wasn't in the room, but I'm assuming he is promoting the advantages of investing in the US and describing his plans for rolling back needless regulations. The companies are, under their own volition, investing in the US and creating new jobs in response to that changed business environment. That is, an environment that is more friendly to business. Trump is, in my judgment, primarily focused on fostering a good environment for business. This is in stark contrast to the active animus towards business that the previous administration exhibited. You can probably look at these big results Trump is claiming as a result of pent-up forces that could not have free play because of bad practices of the previous administration.


I will mention the case where Trump said that pipeline steel must come from the United States. Trump is pretty proud of that. This is somewhat unusual, and I'm not clear on what the leverage he is using to impose this diktat on private companies. If it is a quid pro quo -- I will sign off on this IF you agree to this proviso -- I wonder if that is legal? I'm not saying I object to this specific thing, but it leaves me curious about what the ramifications are. I don't know. There could be some "unintended consequences" in such things.


On the subject of protectionism. People are quick to deride protectionist measures. Usually the admonition revolves around how protectionist measures are damaging to foreign trade. That is probably true, but I would point out that the finding that this creates bad results is based on an assumption -- the assumption that the trade deficit is positive (we export more value than we import) or is neutral. In our present economic situation this assumption does NOT hold. I'm pretty sure I remember Trump mentioning a topic that was explicitly associated with protectionism -- I think it involved quoting from Abraham Lincoln. To the oft repeated admonition that if we resort to protectionist measures that we won't be able to buy foreign goods cheaply anymore I say "SSSFFFTTTT!!!!!" So what? Do we really need more cheap crap from China? Do we really need Roquefort cheese from France? Even if I take the view that there is something of value that is lost under this circumstance . . . it also has to be admitted that something of value is gained, to wit additional American jobs. It is pretty clear that if we don't have a net trade deficit of ~ $750 B per year, that money that isn't flushing out of the country every year is going to be spent on something else in country, and THAT will generate jobs of some sort or other. Its simple macroeconomics. People who say in our circumstances resorting to protectionist measures has ONLY bad consequences are selling snake oil.

Last edited by Alsatian; 03-02-2017 at 10:45 AM.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 03-02-2017, 03:07 PM
  #23  
Nontypical Buck
 
MudderChuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Germany/Calif.
Posts: 2,302
Default

Originally Posted by Alsatian View Post
I don't disagree with that, but on the other hand I don't think Trump is doing this. When he has discussions with companies -- Softbank, Intel, Ford, Chrysler, GM, DOW -- he isn't creating government jobs. I wasn't in the room, but I'm assuming he is promoting the advantages of investing in the US and describing his plans for rolling back needless regulations. The companies are, under their own volition, investing in the US and creating new jobs in response to that changed business environment. That is, an environment that is more friendly to business. Trump is, in my judgment, primarily focused on fostering a good environment for business. This is in stark contrast to the active animus towards business that the previous administration exhibited. You can probably look at these big results Trump is claiming as a result of pent-up forces that could not have free play because of bad practices of the previous administration.


I will mention the case where Trump said that pipeline steel must come from the United States. Trump is pretty proud of that. This is somewhat unusual, and I'm not clear on what the leverage he is using to impose this diktat on private companies. If it is a quid pro quo -- I will sign off on this IF you agree to this proviso -- I wonder if that is legal? I'm not saying I object to this specific thing, but it leaves me curious about what the ramifications are. I don't know. There could be some "unintended consequences" in such things.


On the subject of protectionism. People are quick to deride protectionist measures. Usually the admonition revolves around how protectionist measures are damaging to foreign trade. That is probably true, but I would point out that the finding that this creates bad results is based on an assumption -- the assumption that the trade deficit is positive (we export more value than we import) or is neutral. In our present economic situation this assumption does NOT hold. I'm pretty sure I remember Trump mentioning a topic that was explicitly associated with protectionism -- I think it involved quoting from Abraham Lincoln. To the oft repeated admonition that if we resort to protectionist measures that we won't be able to buy foreign goods cheaply anymore I say "SSSFFFTTTT!!!!!" So what? Do we really need more cheap crap from China? Do we really need Roquefort cheese from France? Even if I take the view that there is something of value that is lost under this circumstance . . . it also has to be admitted that something of value is gained, to wit additional American jobs. It is pretty clear that if we don't have a net trade deficit of ~ $750 B per year, that money that isn't flushing out of the country every year is going to be spent on something else in country, and THAT will generate jobs of some sort or other. Its simple macroeconomics. People who say in our circumstances resorting to protectionist measures has ONLY bad consequences are selling snake oil.
Just a suggestion, don't fall into the trap of thinking linear and single goal solutions. Try to think micro and macro, try to integrate the single solutions into a whole picture.

The smart ones think and plan most situations as win, win, win scenarios. For example, the pipeline, a more reliable source of energy than oil freighters. American made steel, you need the plants to produce it, strategic infrastructure, also needed for war. Building up the work force and creating skilled jobs, actually also a strategic infrastructure.

Repatriating American industry, securing the borders. Repatriating American wealth.

Almost exactly what I'd do if I was anticipating a major war.

The real tip off would be if the U.S. started stock piling strategic materials. The minerals and other stuff unavailable or rare in the U.S., some metals etc. and/or opening dormant mining operations and exploiting strategic metal reserves (the war material needed but still in the ground). Actually another win win, our adversaries would say whoa, what have we got here, making them nervous and if we actually do have to go to war, we would be ahead of the curve.

If you take many of Trumps actions separately they make sense linearly thinking, you take them as a whole, many are win, win, win scenarios. The end game may be exactly what he says it is, "to make America great again", win and maybe be prepared to go to war if necessary win win.
MudderChuck is offline  
Old 03-02-2017, 06:44 PM
  #24  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 5,999
Default

Originally Posted by MudderChuck View Post
Just a suggestion, don't fall into the trap of thinking linear and single goal solutions. Try to think micro and macro, try to integrate the single solutions into a whole picture.

The smart ones think and plan most situations as win, win, win scenarios. For example, the pipeline, a more reliable source of energy than oil freighters. American made steel, you need the plants to produce it, strategic infrastructure, also needed for war. Building up the work force and creating skilled jobs, actually also a strategic infrastructure.

Repatriating American industry, securing the borders. Repatriating American wealth.

Almost exactly what I'd do if I was anticipating a major war.

The real tip off would be if the U.S. started stock piling strategic materials. The minerals and other stuff unavailable or rare in the U.S., some metals etc. and/or opening dormant mining operations and exploiting strategic metal reserves (the war material needed but still in the ground). Actually another win win, our adversaries would say whoa, what have we got here, making them nervous and if we actually do have to go to war, we would be ahead of the curve.

If you take many of Trumps actions separately they make sense linearly thinking, you take them as a whole, many are win, win, win scenarios. The end game may be exactly what he says it is, "to make America great again", win and maybe be prepared to go to war if necessary win win.
I don't disagree. I would say that we should always be ready for war. Said in other words, SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLVM. If you would live in peace, prepare for war. We should not go to war casually, but we should be ready and able.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 03-03-2017, 04:43 AM
  #25  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Wink

I was happy with everything he said and I thought he did a great job. I was pleased that he reiterated his support for social security and Medicare. Not only are those valuable programs, but I think it's worth some votes as well.
sachiko is offline  
Old 03-03-2017, 05:07 AM
  #26  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,284
Default

Trump is talking about infrastructure rebuilding, some with public money and some with private. I don't disagree with that.
before you go all in on this, it's not the federal governments role to spend all this extra money on local projects. We went through this under Obama and what did we get. I know there is a list of projects floating around out there and I got news for you, it's not crumbling bridges and roadways. It's high speed rail and subway extensions. It's schools...... This is a boondoggle on something we already pay for through all the taxes like the gas tax and property taxes. We're 20 trillion in debt on paper and over 200trillion in unfunded liabilities, it's time to address our debts not add to them.

A comment on building a pipeline using US steel only. What is US steel? There is a web of regulations that is a nightmare to figure out. This only adds a higher price tag to the project. This means other projects must be put on hold, less jobs. Furthermore, why can't all US Citizens who wish to compete for this business be included? This crony capitalism tells many A,Erica's you're not worthy because of where you decided to work. This will lead to less jobs not more. This is a payoff to the unions and nothing more.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 03-03-2017, 05:14 AM
  #27  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,284
Default

Originally Posted by sachiko View Post
I was happy with everything he said and I thought he did a great job. I was pleased that he reiterated his support for social security and Medicare. Not only are those valuable programs, but I think it's worth some votes as well.
They are the number one driver of our debt, are you now saying deficits no linger matter? We can continue to put the children of America deeper into a hole that can't be climbed out? 7 years, Medicare goes belly up. SS goes belly up around 2030 ( don't believe the 2034 projection because the needle didn't move when they raided 250 billion out of it to pay disability). 2040,100% of the federal budget will be consumed by SS,Medicare, and Medicaid. Keep in mind, this isn't including any other entitlements like Obamacare (which looks like its here to stay) and now the paid family leave act that will happen in the next few years since politicians can't seem to stop spending other people money. Then what? Do we need a military? FBI? Federal prison?
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 03-03-2017, 07:13 AM
  #28  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Wink

Mr. Mouse has a point. But he's overlooking the fact that it's a diminishing problem. Only about 1-2% of people born in 1945 will get to 2040 (age 95). Around 35% percent will pass over into the afterlife before reaching age 80. (More females than males will get there.)


While your annuities and other investments can be passed on to your descendants, social security payments cannot, and they don't pass over into the afterlife with you.


Also, we millennials are a slightly larger percentage of the population than the baby boomers. On the negative side, our reproductive rate is dropping. (Don't blame me. I wanted to have at least six, but had to stop for medical reasons.)


I suspect some changes will be phased in that will affect my generation the most, though, probably a graduated decrease paired with an increase in other income.
sachiko is offline  
Old 03-03-2017, 08:43 AM
  #29  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,361
Default

Trump is talking about infrastructure rebuilding, some with public money and some with private. I don't disagree with that.
Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
before you go all in on this, it's not the federal governments role to spend all this extra money on local projects. We went through this under Obama and what did we get.
In my above quote and in answer to your immediate quote above, I was referring to Trump's comments about bridges and highways. Are you saying all of those are not the federal government's responsibility and are instead each individual state's responsibility? If that is the case, then I would be in favor of Trump earmarking the federal highway monies collected from the states to be spent exclusively on fixing highways, bridges, etc. in those states.

I know there is a list of projects floating around out there and I got news for you, it's not crumbling bridges and roadways. It's high speed rail and subway extensions. It's schools...... This is a boondoggle on something we already pay for through all the taxes like the gas tax and property taxes. We're 20 trillion in debt on paper and over 200trillion in unfunded liabilities, it's time to address our debts not add to them.
I think spending on high speed rails is an absolute waste. subways extensions should be done on a local level as most municipalities simply aren't large enough to justify subways. As for schools, yes, I agree that those should be a local issue.

A comment on building a pipeline using US steel only. What is US steel? There is a web of regulations that is a nightmare to figure out. This only adds a higher price tag to the project. This means other projects must be put on hold, less jobs. Furthermore, why can't all US Citizens who wish to compete for this business be included? This crony capitalism tells many A,Erica's you're not worthy because of where you decided to work. This will lead to less jobs not more. This is a payoff to the unions and nothing more.
I'm not sure which companies you're referring to. Are you saying there are foreign companies operating plants in the U.S.? Or are you saying it's like car manufacturing and some parts may be foreign?
CalHunter is offline  
Old 03-03-2017, 09:53 AM
  #30  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 5,999
Default

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
They are the number one driver of our debt, are you now saying deficits no linger matter? We can continue to put the children of America deeper into a hole that can't be climbed out? 7 years, Medicare goes belly up. SS goes belly up around 2030 ( don't believe the 2034 projection because the needle didn't move when they raided 250 billion out of it to pay disability). 2040,100% of the federal budget will be consumed by SS,Medicare, and Medicaid. Keep in mind, this isn't including any other entitlements like Obamacare (which looks like its here to stay) and now the paid family leave act that will happen in the next few years since politicians can't seem to stop spending other people money. Then what? Do we need a military? FBI? Federal prison?

Fieldmouse: you obviously haven't read much history or the answer would be obvious. Like the Romans, we will conquer our nearest neighbors and plunder their wealth. What's not to like about that solution?


But seriously, you raise a good point. I assume you know your numbers. I don't have an answer. Speaking personally, part of my plan is to try to keep healthy and to keep working as long as I can. I enjoy my job -- at least to some extent. The idea of keeping working is not an abhorrent idea.


Something I have thought in the past as a good principle of government would be to segment and allocate the federal revenues by category. In this plan no deficit spending is allowed, and each category gets its allocation and no more than that. They can spend that money within their category largely as they see fit. So, suppose you divide things up into national defense, promoting the general welfare, federal government, and infrastructure. Suppose you allocate 30% to defense, 10% to federal government, 30% to general welfare, and 30% to infrastructure (you can adapt this idea arbitrarily by designating your own preferred categories and your own preferred percentage allocations -- that is a subject that can be debated and compromised upon). The people who are interested in defense can haggle over how to spend their money, but they can't spend more than they are allocated and they can't take any from the other categories. Likewise with spending in the other categories. Should we spend more on FBI, less on CIA, more on Navy, less on Air Force. Those are debates that make sense. It is hard, politically, however, to rationally balance between spending for CIA versus spending for national healthcare. It seems this kind of structural approach would solve some problems. I understand that our politicians will never do something so sensible as this, as it would break up their influence peddling party.


So one version of my scheme would have some category that corresponds to the entitlement programs. It would be allocated some fixed percentage of the federal revenues -- say 20%, say 30%. Whatever (I'm not linking this to my earlier example: obviously summing all categories together must add up to 100%). Then in this scheme, you would not have the problem of entitlements running out of control. It would be restricted. Then it would become a subject of political discourse how to allocate that money -- which is fixed and limited in extent. Should more money be allocated to retirement benefits for aged and less to "universal healthcare?" Should less money be allocated to retirement benefits and more allocated to healthcare? These are political questions -- but these specific questions are realistic. You can't have everything you would like to have. There are constraints. There is more good that could be done than there is budget to pay for . . . so you have to make hard choices.


As an example of this. Years ago I found that my decision making process in buying Christmas gifts for my wife were different when I was paying with a credit card versus paying with cash. For example, in evaluating which lens to select to go with a nice Nikon camera (FM-2) should I get the lens with a bigger opening (smaller minimum f-stop) which costs about $100 more versus the lens with one level smaller opening (greater minimum f-stop). The more expensive lens supports shooting pictures in less light and maybe other effects . . . but this was a feature that would rarely be used. Is it worth the extra $100? I found that I answered that question one way if I was paying with a credit card and a different way if I had to pay cash and balance that payment against other immediate demands for my cash. We need to start doing our government spending as if we are paying with cash rather than with a credit card. Our decisions would be more financially responsible.


And Fieldmouse also makes a good point that it is irresponsible to spend without limit and pass the resultant debt on to our children and grandchildren. How is it our right to obligate our children debts that we made?

Last edited by Alsatian; 03-03-2017 at 10:06 AM.
Alsatian is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.