President Donald Trump

[Redbirds Fan]

Forgot to mention...Trump is now trying to weasel out of the wiretapping claim altogether. He told a press gathering today when asked about his tweets claiming that Obama had wiretapped him, "We said nothing. All we did was quote a very talented legal mind." He went on to say that the reporters shouldn't even be asking him about it, that they should be asking Fox, which is apparently the home of the very talented legal mind in question. Bret Baier?

And he is apparently using the royal 'we' again.

[Bernie Brewer]

I keep reading all the negative comments about his budget, but I also keep thinking that he's at least attempting to do exactly what he "promised" he'd do as a candidate. He said we need to increase military, help our veterans, cut spending on needless programs that have run amuck or are beyond their original purpose. I don't agree with all the cuts but I do think some are needed. I don't know that the increase in military spending is necessary either. He said he would force foreign governments to honor their financial commitments to things like NATO and the UN. The disconnect as I see it is in his and the administration's execution and communication. Let's face it, he had no real belief he'd ever win (yes, I know he says he knew all a long!). All of this is the result of the whole administrations lack of experience. When people said Obama didn't have the experience, they weren't wrong necessarily, but Obama had the wisdom to surround himself with experienced staff and advisors. He is still figuring this whole President thing out, which in an if itself is kind no of frightening. As a negotiator, when negotiating you start at extremes and work your way to a compromise. I suspect his budget was the extreme and he is willing to negotiate compromises as long as his campaign promises are included. He just has such a anti-political way of doing things that it's pretty clumsy. He has surrounded himself with inexperienced "yes" people and that is a problem too.

[Hornsby]

At the end of the day, Trump is a petulant child, unwilling and perhaps incapable of compromise. What he did yesterday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel was inexcusable..she asked him, point blank, if he wanted to have a handshake for the camera availability, he simply ignored her.

Honestly, he's going to end up alienating pretty much all of our greatest allies...he refuses to apologize to the Brits for calling them out as the agents that Obama allegedly used to "wiretap" him. He insults Merkel, Tillerson is too tired to do his job over in the far East, and now he's stirring the pot with China and North Korea. Let's not forget that he's very quietly putting boots on the ground over in Syria as well.

The issue, as BB pointed out is that he's inexperienced, the problem is, unlike Barack Obama, he refuses to surround himself with anyone with experience, let along anyone who'll vocally oppose him.

[Redbirds Fan]

I keep reading all the negative comments about his budget, but I also keep thinking that he's at least attempting to do exactly what he "promised" he'd do as a candidate. He said we need to increase military, help our veterans, cut spending on needless programs that have run amuck or are beyond their original purpose. I don't agree with all the cuts but I do think some are needed. I don't know that the increase in military spending is necessary either. He said he would force foreign governments to honor their financial commitments to things like NATO and the UN. The disconnect as I see it is in his and the administration's execution and communication. Let's face it, he had no real belief he'd ever win (yes, I know he says he knew all a long!). All of this is the result of the whole administrations lack of experience. When people said Obama didn't have the experience, they weren't wrong necessarily, but Obama had the wisdom to surround himself with experienced staff and advisors. He is still figuring this whole President thing out, which in an if itself is kind no of frightening. As a negotiator, when negotiating you start at extremes and work your way to a compromise. I suspect his budget was the extreme and he is willing to negotiate compromises as long as his campaign promises are included. He just has such a anti-political way of doing things that it's pretty clumsy. He has surrounded himself with inexperienced "yes" people and that is a problem too.

Respectfully, Bernie

A couple of thoughts...the fact that he is doing what he promised to do in the campaign in no way makes it acceptable. A majority of Americans voted against him and his campaign promises. It should be expected that people would resist now as well. And he should take into account that he now represents all Americans, not just those who supported his extreme campaign promises.

As for his experience, nobody has experience being President. But Trump is, so far as I can remember, the first President we have had with absolutely no experience in either government or the military, two areas which are essential to understanding the job. And it is pretty clear that he does not understand the job. He is getting little help from the people he has placed in positions of authority around him.

Last, my experience is that you do not start negotiations from an extreme position. That shows bad faith rather than strength. It shows the other side that you are not reasonable and not serious about the negotiations. And it encourages the other side to be extreme in their negotiations. It may work if you are dealing with a small contractor you can push around, when there is always another contractor you can go to if the negotiation fails. But there is only one Germany. One France. One Austrailia. We can't push them around, and we can't just go to the next contractor on the list.

Not trying to jam you up, Bernie, but I have heard similar arguments from Trump's spokesmen who also say he is a neophyte, don't take him literally, we don't know what is in his heart, he is playing four dimensional chess, etc.

[umjewman]

As for his experience, nobody has experience being President.

Except for Grover Cleveland's second term, of course.

[nots]

Not really an insult, more of an observation on how you didn't evade the question so much as just walked right through it like a ninja.

About Obama, Buffet, etc....you won't hear them complaining about how much they have to pay in taxes.

I read today that if Trump would just quit going to Mar-a-Lago, and be content with only two White Houses (DC and NYC), the savings would be enough to fund four of the significant programs his budget proposal cuts: The National Endowment for the Arts, which encourages participation in the arts ($152 million), the US Interagency Council on Homelessness ($4 million), an independent agency coordinating the federal government's efforts to reduce homelessness, the Senior Community Service Employment Program ($434 million), which has helped more than one million people 55 and older find jobs and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars ($11 million), providing scholarships and fellowships in social sciences and humanities.

Mentioning uber-wealthy and the 39% bracket got me to thinking about wealth vs. income. We may have had a thread about that one time. I'd be curious to know what people think about it.

Id like to see a source for these numbers. Politico puys the cost of a weekend at $3M in Florida. You have 600M/yr in programs equating to roughly 200 weekends in Forida per year.
Edit: i guess you are saying that if he for goes 4 years of trips to Florida, he could find those programs for 1 year. Carry-on

[Bernie Brewer]

Respectfully, Bernie

A couple of thoughts...the fact that he is doing what he promised to do in the campaign in no way makes it acceptable. A majority of Americans voted against him and his campaign promises. It should be expected that people would resist now as well. And he should take into account that he now represents all Americans, not just those who supported his extreme campaign promises.

As for his experience, nobody has experience being President. But Trump is, so far as I can remember, the first President we have had with absolutely no experience in either government or the military, two areas which are essential to understanding the job. And it is pretty clear that he does not understand the job. He is getting little help from the people he has placed in positions of authority around him.

Last, my experience is that you do not start negotiations from an extreme position. That shows bad faith rather than strength. It shows the other side that you are not reasonable and not serious about the negotiations. And it encourages the other side to be extreme in their negotiations. It may work if you are dealing with a small contractor you can push around, when there is always another contractor you can go to if the negotiation fails. But there is only one Germany. One France. One Austrailia. We can't push them around, and we can't just go to the next contractor on the list.

Not trying to jam you up, Bernie, but I have heard similar arguments from Trump's spokesmen who also say he is a neophyte, don't take him literally, we don't know what is in his heart, he is playing four dimensional chess, etc.

I'm not sure what to make of your first paragraph. To borrow from one of your Schticks, that notion is Demwhatsboutery. He lost the majority of the vote so he isn't my president. Yes, I know that is not what you're saying. But, in fact he did win, so sadly, the majority comment really doesn't matter, particularly to him. Whether it should or not is another matter, but he's been pretty clear that he could care less about that, except when he talks about 3 million in illegal votes!!! The loyal opposition should always have the right to voice, respectfully, their discontent. But, he doesn't have to acquiesce to it.

I'm not defending him. But when you're in a fight, you should know as much as you can about your opponent and his tendencies. He is playing this, good or bad, by his own book and just the way you knew he would. Expecting different is simply foolhardy. He is not usual. He is completely unusual and doesn't seem to respect the Office of the Presidency like he should.

I applaud people who appropriately voice their discontent. I applaud and respect you for your voice and stance on decorum, fairness, compassion and simply right and wrong. And, I'm about 90%, maybe more, in your court on many of these issues. I'm just trying to understand what the hell he's doing. Unfortunately, most of what he's doing doesn't make much sense.

[cardboardbox]

I read today that if Trump would just quit going to Mar-a-Lago, and be content with only two White Houses (DC and NYC), the savings would be enough to fund four of the significant programs his budget proposal cuts

I read just a couple days ago that Trump hasnt been back to Trump Tower since the inauguration.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I read just a couple days ago that Trump hasnt been back to Trump Tower since the inauguration.

Read some more and you'll discover his wife and child rarely stay anywhere else.

[nots]

Read some more and you'll discover his wife and child rarely stay anywhere else.

That's the one that he should be paying for. I'm totally fine with weekends in Florida--was fine with Obama in Hawaii and Bush taking a month in Crawford. But your wife has to come to DC, or you have to foot the bill. It's abusing your position.

[GwynnInTheHall]

That's the one that he should be paying for. I'm totally fine with weekends in Florida--was fine with Obama in Hawaii and Bush taking a month in Crawford. But your wife has to come to DC, or you have to foot the bill. It's abusing your position.

I'm good with an out of DC retreat as well. But concurrently maintaining a full contingent of SS agents as well as all the other security measures First family demand for in person visits, they need to pay for all that shit themselves or stay in the White House.


BTW, Nots. I'd love to answer your question to me, but I need specifics. What is the 20 Trillion since 64 made up of? What was it spent on? Where did the money come from to spend it?

I did some preliminary work and not even the defense portion of the budget comes to 20 Trillion over that some time period.

[nots]

I'm good with an out of DC retreat as well. But concurrently maintaining a full contingent of SS agents as well as all the other security measures First family demand for in person visits, they need to pay for all that shit themselves or stay in the White House.


BTW, Nots. I'd love to answer your question to me, but I need specifics. What is the 20 Trillion since 64 made up of? What was it spent on? Where did the money come from to spend it?

I did some preliminary work and not even the defense portion of the budget comes to 20 Trillion over that some time period.

Just google 'war on poverty' and you will get several articles all across the political spectrum. The highest was $22T* from the Heritage Foundation, to the Washington Post giving Paul Ryan two Pinnochios for claiming $15T (through 2014), though they didn't quantify it.Robert Reich has a good article articulating the lefts POV, while Cato probably explains the rights view best, but there are dozens of perspectives. A lot depends on what you count, and what you don't count. According to the House website, we spent $799B in 2014, so I think $20T ballparks it. http://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/
The % of folks living in poverty in 1964 was 19% (and declining). Since then it has never broken below 10% and has hit 15% several times (albeit usually during recessions). In stead of getting lost in the weeds arguing over a specific amount spent, i probably should have focused on the % of Americans living in poverty since those numbers are much less subject to manipulation.
*the total includes both federal, state and local spending.

[Redbirds Fan]

I'm not sure what to make of your first paragraph. To borrow from one of your Schticks, that notion is Demwhatsboutery. He lost the majority of the vote so he isn't my president. Yes, I know that is not what you're saying. But, in fact he did win, so sadly, the majority comment really doesn't matter, particularly to him. Whether it should or not is another matter, but he's been pretty clear that he could care less about that, except when he talks about 3 million in illegal votes!!! The loyal opposition should always have the right to voice, respectfully, their discontent. But, he doesn't have to acquiesce to it.

I'm not defending him. But when you're in a fight, you should know as much as you can about your opponent and his tendencies. He is playing this, good or bad, by his own book and just the way you knew he would. Expecting different is simply foolhardy. He is not usual. He is completely unusual and doesn't seem to respect the Office of the Presidency like he should.

I applaud people who appropriately voice their discontent. I applaud and respect you for your voice and stance on decorum, fairness, compassion and simply right and wrong. And, I'm about 90%, maybe more, in your court on many of these issues. I'm just trying to understand what the hell he's doing. Unfortunately, most of what he's doing doesn't make much sense.

Right back at you. And I don't understand at all what he is doing, either, which I admit is frustrating. We here spend a lot of time barking at each other due to what I think is in part some frustration on the center/left at what is going on and frustration on the center/right at the feeling they are somehow supposed to be able to justify or explain it. I think the far left and the far right have their positions on lock down.

I think most here have issues with way the President handles many things. It would probably be close to unanimous that he should give up the android and concentrate on governing. We're spending way too much time chasing rabbits.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Just google 'war on poverty' and you will get several articles all across the political spectrum. The highest was $22T from the Heritage Foundation, to the Washington Post giving Paul Ryan two Pinnochios for claiming $15T (through 2014), though they didn't quantify it. A lot depends on what you count, and what you don't count. According to the House website, we spent $799B in 2014, so I think $20T ballparks it. http://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/
The % of folks living in poverty in 1964 was 19% (and declining). Since then it has never broken below 10% and has hit 15% several times (albeit usually during recessions). In stead of getting lost in the weeds arguing over a specific amount spent, i probably should have focused on the % of Americans living in poverty since those numbers are much less subject to manipulation.

A quick search and you'll find that number includes Medicaid, Educational grants, tax credits, SSI, adoption assistance, TANF, Food Stamps, Section 8, Vocational training and on and on.

Of these I've listed, what do you object to and why?

I've also read numbers that indicate we spend a Trillion a year on National Security, how do you think that's worked out?

My point of view is very simple. Not all social programs included in your total of 20T are actual "welfare"or like programs, in fact only a quarter of what you've stated is actually considered that (and that's also including tax credits and SSI which I don;t consider--welfare)

My answer to you would be, if the National Security exists to prevent loss of American lives and to safeguard our quality of life and that we don't qualify our fiscal support for those programs by asking--how has that worked out, then why should we do it for social programs who's intent is to do exactly the same thing--Prevent loss of life and safeguard the quality of the lives of our citizens.

Is either program free from abuse or corruption? No. Could they both be more efficient? yes, but until you treat BOTH budgets with the same scrutiny, to look at one without the other is disingenuous.

I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but it IS being done.

[Redbirds Fan]

Just google 'war on poverty' and you will get several articles all across the political spectrum. The highest was $22T* from the Heritage Foundation, to the Washington Post giving Paul Ryan two Pinnochios for claiming $15T (through 2014), though they didn't quantify it.Robert Reich has a good article articulating the lefts POV, while Cato probably explains the rights view best, but there are dozens of perspectives. A lot depends on what you count, and what you don't count. According to the House website, we spent $799B in 2014, so I think $20T ballparks it. http://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/
The % of folks living in poverty in 1964 was 19% (and declining). Since then it has never broken below 10% and has hit 15% several times (albeit usually during recessions). In stead of getting lost in the weeds arguing over a specific amount spent, i probably should have focused on the % of Americans living in poverty since those numbers are much less subject to manipulation.
*the total includes both federal, state and local spending.

Wow. It's not the House website, it's a partisan site maintained by the House Budget Committee. The "war on poverty" figures, so far as I can tell, are just a grab-bag of numbers and programs which someone decided to include in the total. The $779B includes all kinds of stuff. All of federal Medicaid. Tons of tax credits and deductions, many classified as "cash aid". Job programs, including Americorp. HIV programs. Education programs of all types. Nutrition programs. Seniors programs. Veterans Disaility. Veterans health care. Federal Public Defenders. Legal Servies Corporations. For the most part, if it looks like something a rich white kid wouldn't use, they put it in the pile.

So you can't just google 'war on poverty' unless you have an accepted definition of what the war on poverty means. Everything which could, conceivably, benefit a poor person somewhere is not welfare, despite what they say in DC. It's a GOP bogey man, just like 'foreign aid'. If you listen to my local rep, foreign aid is driving the country bankrupt, while in fact it takes up about 1% of our budget, while helping us maintain diplomatic status and soft power all over the globe.