Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 171611 times)

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2400 on: February 26, 2017, 05:15:03 PM »
Trump is skipping the White House Correspondents' Dinner.  Snowflake might get upset.
snowflake?
now in new orange flavour.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2401 on: February 26, 2017, 05:27:41 PM »
Trump is skipping the White House Correspondents' Dinner.  Snowflake might get upset.
snowflake?
now in new orange flavour.
I'm undecided if his skipping more things would be better or worse...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5890
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2402 on: February 26, 2017, 06:16:22 PM »
Trump is skipping the White House Correspondents' Dinner.  Snowflake might get upset.
snowflake?
now in new orange flavour.
I'm undecided if his skipping more things would be better or worse...
sorry to be so dense, but here DJT is the snowflake?  um... why, exactly? 
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • Location: Southern California
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2403 on: February 26, 2017, 07:00:36 PM »
I'm guessing it's because special snowflakes hate criticism.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2404 on: February 26, 2017, 07:10:06 PM »
Because he is so special and unique and wonderful. I.e., a special little snowflake. It's generally a derogatory term for people who feel they are special or different.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7007
  • Registered member
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2405 on: February 26, 2017, 08:53:25 PM »
Because he is so special and unique and wonderful. I.e., a special little snowflake. It's generally a derogatory term for people who feel they are special or different.

It's also used ironically because traditionally conservatives called more extreme liberals snowflakes with respect to social issues and political correctness (e.g., I'm sorry I assumed your gender, you special snowflake, do you need a safe space to discuss your preferred pronouns?).  But recently it's been shown that Trump needs just as much, if not more, coddling than a sophomore women's studies major.

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 837
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2406 on: February 27, 2017, 06:11:11 AM »
Revisionist history, ftw. No Republicans voted for the ACA*. The dems had super majority, and could have passed anything they wanted, without worrying about filibusters, and they did. They wanted to give their corporate interests in the insurance lobby a huge government handout, and did so.

Where are you getting this version of history from?  Because that's not what happened.

You may recall that Democrats TRIED to pass single payer health care, back in the 90s, with Hillary Clinton.  Republicans tore it apart.  It has always been Republicans who opposed health care reform of any kind.  It has always been Republicans who solely support their corporate interests at the expense of the working class. 

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of you blaming Democrats for everything.  This is classic Donald Trump behavior, and you should know better.  Are you a 70 year old fat man with a poor diet?  Attack your opponents health and stamina!  Were you born in to a wealthy family?  Campaign on behalf of blue collar workers!  Are you a five time draft dodger?  "No one is better on the military than me!"  Do you hate the American health care system?  Blame the Democrats!

It's disgusting and disingenuous and deceitful and dishonest and it discredits everything else you have to say.  Just stop it.

Democrats have been trying to fix health care since forever.  They passed medicare and medicaid.  They tried to pass single payer.  Due to Republican opposition, they had to settle for a neutered version of the ACA.  You're blaming the wrong party, plain and simple, and you do it SO consistently and SO blatantly dishonestly that I'm struggling to give you the benefit of the doubt (ignorance) instead of taking you at face value (malice).
the people double digit premium increases and little improvement in Healthcare  outcomes for their trouble. Forgive me that I'm not cutting the corrupt bastards any slack.

Some people saw increases. Some people saw little/no increases (like myself). On a personal level it benefitted some folks I know immensely. My mother was able to get healthcare after not being able to afford it for 10+ years (while working 60-90 hours/wk). A staunch Republican I used to work with who retired earlier than normal saved  a shit ton of money by utilizing the ACA over COBRA. He has admitted as much.

Is it a wonderful cure-all? Absolutely not. Is it as bad as you and others I have run across claim? Absolutely not. Your blanket statement should be reworded to reflect reality though.   


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5890
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2407 on: February 27, 2017, 06:12:04 AM »
Because he is so special and unique and wonderful. I.e., a special little snowflake. It's generally a derogatory term for people who feel they are special or different.

It's also used ironically because traditionally conservatives called more extreme liberals snowflakes with respect to social issues and political correctness (e.g., I'm sorry I assumed your gender, you special snowflake, do you need a safe space to discuss your preferred pronouns?).  But recently it's been shown that Trump needs just as much, if not more, coddling than a sophomore women's studies major.
Ok, thanks for the explanations.  I had only heard the term "snowflake' used in a derogatory way against people, usually black, who try to act as "white" as possible.  As in: "that suburb-livin' snowflake thinks the B.E.T. is a stock symbol"
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5890
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2408 on: February 27, 2017, 09:14:02 AM »
Another impact:  Trump is proposing to increase military spending by $54B, while cutting virtually all other federal agencies by the same amount.

"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

FliXFantatier

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2409 on: February 27, 2017, 09:32:47 AM »
Another impact:  Trump is proposing to increase military spending by $54B, while cutting virtually all other federal agencies by the same amount.
Trump before the election:


https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/836239979303010304

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5890
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2410 on: February 27, 2017, 09:46:09 AM »
As usual, it's a virtual Rorschach test when interpreting Trump's remarks and motives.  He certainly campaigned on cutting the federal government while also restoring our "depleted"* military, but as pointed out above he has also been critical of our military involvement and has said he'd have preferred to spend the money another way. 


*'depleted' is in the eye of the beholder.  As a % of our GDP our military spending is roughly in line with the 50 year average.  OTOH we spend more than the next 8 countries combined on our military, at ~$600B/year. We've got a lot of aging aircraft, ships and vehicles because (in part) we have so many of them to begin with.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2411 on: February 27, 2017, 10:01:22 AM »

*'depleted' is in the eye of the beholder.  As a % of our GDP our military spending is roughly in line with the 50 year average.  OTOH we spend more than the next 8 countries combined on our military, at ~$600B/year. We've got a lot of aging aircraft, ships and vehicles because (in part) we have so many of them to begin with.

They're also in rough shape from near constant deployments and deferred maintenance.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7007
  • Registered member
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2412 on: February 27, 2017, 10:14:05 AM »
Because he is so special and unique and wonderful. I.e., a special little snowflake. It's generally a derogatory term for people who feel they are special or different.

It's also used ironically because traditionally conservatives called more extreme liberals snowflakes with respect to social issues and political correctness (e.g., I'm sorry I assumed your gender, you special snowflake, do you need a safe space to discuss your preferred pronouns?).  But recently it's been shown that Trump needs just as much, if not more, coddling than a sophomore women's studies major.
Ok, thanks for the explanations.  I had only heard the term "snowflake' used in a derogatory way against people, usually black, who try to act as "white" as possible.  As in: "that suburb-livin' snowflake thinks the B.E.T. is a stock symbol"

It might be a regional/generational thing.  Growing up around here, millenials were typically told unironically that they were "special snowflakes" (meaning unique) and implicitly taught that the world should revolve around their individual needs, leading to them being perceived as entitled

« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 10:17:03 AM by dragoncar »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5890
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2413 on: February 27, 2017, 10:17:18 AM »

*'depleted' is in the eye of the beholder.  As a % of our GDP our military spending is roughly in line with the 50 year average.  OTOH we spend more than the next 8 countries combined on our military, at ~$600B/year. We've got a lot of aging aircraft, ships and vehicles because (in part) we have so many of them to begin with.

They're also in rough shape from near constant deployments and deferred maintenance.

Yeah...as I said everything can be interpreted through the lens of the beholder.  Being under deployment for 15 years certainly has worn things down, an that's the driving reason why many hawks argue that we need to increase the size of our military - so that we can sustain this level of deployment without everything going to pot.  Doves might argue that whatever the size of the military we wind up using it, so a more sensible strategy is to scale back the size of everything, and then we could replace things on a much more frequent basis.

What's odd to me is DJT's dual-insistence that we need to rehabilitate our military while signaling that we won't be as involved with foreign conflicts. To me this is the essence of "we need more money so we can do less with it".
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

dividendman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Age: 34
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2414 on: February 27, 2017, 12:48:05 PM »
Because he is so special and unique and wonderful. I.e., a special little snowflake. It's generally a derogatory term for people who feel they are special or different.

Snowflakes aren't (visually) unique. Unless you mean unique just like everything is composed of it's own atoms and molecules, but then everything is unique and unique means nothing.

You an put two snowflakes under a microscope and come up with two that look the same pretty easily.

FIRE me

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1100
  • Location: Louisville, KY
  • So much technology, so little talent.
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2415 on: February 27, 2017, 01:31:29 PM »
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

FIRE'd on January 4, 2017

zoltani

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
  • Location: PNW
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2416 on: February 27, 2017, 01:50:47 PM »
Because he is so special and unique and wonderful. I.e., a special little snowflake. It's generally a derogatory term for people who feel they are special or different.

Snowflakes aren't (visually) unique. Unless you mean unique just like everything is composed of it's own atoms and molecules, but then everything is unique and unique means nothing.

You an put two snowflakes under a microscope and come up with two that look the same pretty easily.

But please tell us how dense they are.
“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1337
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2417 on: February 27, 2017, 02:01:38 PM »
54 billion in military spending with no major conflicts.  I guess deficits don't matter again? 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5890
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2418 on: February 27, 2017, 02:18:01 PM »
54 billion in military spending with no major conflicts.  I guess deficits don't matter again?
worth noting: the proposed increase in military spending is about what we spend annually on science and transportation combined.
Source.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Retire-Canada

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3820
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2419 on: February 27, 2017, 02:26:42 PM »
54 billion in military spending with no major conflicts.  I guess deficits don't matter again?
worth noting: the proposed increase in military spending is about what we spend annually on science and transportation combined.
Source.

So if we cut both of those there is no spending increase! That's Bigly League thinking!

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2420 on: February 27, 2017, 03:03:21 PM »
54 billion in military spending with no major conflicts.  I guess deficits don't matter again?
worth noting: the proposed increase in military spending is about what we spend annually on science and transportation combined.
Source.

I don't know where that pie chart comes from but I am pretty sure it is either straight out wrong or misleading. We spend a lot on Military but if you include social security and medicare spending it puts things more in perspective. I think some charts leave this out because medicare and social are our two largest expenditures and are supposed to be self sustaining through specific taxes beyond our federal income tax.

http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/119/2016

I think this is the better picture to look at because when we talk about paying for something really big like expanding Medicare to create a single payer system, you should be aware medicare spending already outpaces military spending. And our largest expenditure by the fed is for social security.

Obama never quite gave the Military as much money as they requested to facilitate fleet expansion and maintenance they projected would be necessary for future defense I believe with regards to maintaining the balance of power especially naval as threats from China increase.

Trump obviously loves placing himself among strong military leaders and early on promised to basically give them the funds they have been requesting so they can expand our fleet and so on. This I would think is pretty typical of a Republican administration who generally chose to fund defense more heavily.

Also seeing these other pieces of the pie should help remind you that when Republicans chose to attempt to cut spending on medicare or social security and they don't decrease the commensurate taxes for all of us they are essentially pocketing that money for other government spending.... or at least defending a continued raiding of funds that should be dedicated to specific spending.

Another review of the misleading chart:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 03:06:40 PM by RangerOne »

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2421 on: February 27, 2017, 03:12:19 PM »
All that being increasing military funding given the growing threats to our naval dominance and increase in posturing from Russia is probably advisable for all Western nations. However given that we do spend quite a bit much of our spending could probably be derived by putting pressure on the military to clean up some of its spending to focus on expansion and maintenance and become more efficient in general.

It is completely unclear to me if anyone in the new administration did this kind of analysis before coming up with their proposed funding increase or if they to a degree just said fuck it and are giving them what they asked for base on internal projections alone. I suspect the later, in which case we are probably wasting more money than is necessary.

waltworks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2243
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2422 on: February 27, 2017, 03:24:28 PM »
The US government is a giant healthcare/annuity company with a big-ass military. Everything else is basically peanuts.

The basic breakdown is:
25% - healthcare
24% - social security
16% - defense department (some stuff that most people would consider "defense" like nukes isn't included here)
13% - other mandatory programs (mostly noncontroversial stuff)
6% - interest on debt

Leaving 16% for non-defense discretionary spending. Want to fix roads and bridges? Want to spend more on education, or research, or border patrol, or whatever? That's your whole pot of money to work with unless you want to tackle SS/Medicare/Medicaid or military spending first.

-W

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5890
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2423 on: February 27, 2017, 03:26:24 PM »
54 billion in military spending with no major conflicts.  I guess deficits don't matter again?
worth noting: the proposed increase in military spending is about what we spend annually on science and transportation combined.
Source.

I don't know where that pie chart comes from but I am pretty sure it is either straight out wrong or misleading. We spend a lot on Military but if you include social security and medicare spending it puts things more in perspective. I think some charts leave this out because medicare and social are our two largest expenditures and are supposed to be self sustaining through specific taxes beyond our federal income tax.

SSI and Medicare/Medicaid are mandatory spending.  The chart (and the website behind it) are referring to discretionary spending, as referenced in the chart title.
This is the whole issue with federal budgets; it cannot touch mandatory spending, which makes up >64% of the total federal revenue.  About 6% annually goes towawrd paying interest on the debt, which leaves just 30% of the $3.8T up for alteration year to year (plus, of course, deficit spending).  But even within the discretionary category that are promised benefits (like VA spending).
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2424 on: February 27, 2017, 03:29:37 PM »
54 billion in military spending with no major conflicts.  I guess deficits don't matter again?
worth noting: the proposed increase in military spending is about what we spend annually on science and transportation combined.
Source.

I don't know where that pie chart comes from but I am pretty sure it is either straight out wrong or misleading. We spend a lot on Military but if you include social security and medicare spending it puts things more in perspective. I think some charts leave this out because medicare and social are our two largest expenditures and are supposed to be self sustaining through specific taxes beyond our federal income tax.

SSI and Medicare/Medicaid are mandatory spending.  The chart (and the website behind it) are referring to discretionary spending, as referenced in the chart title.
This is the whole issue with federal budgets; it cannot touch mandatory spending, which makes up >64% of the total federal revenue.  About 6% annually goes towawrd paying interest on the debt, which leaves just 30% of the $3.8T up for alteration year to year (plus, of course, deficit spending).  But even within the discretionary category that are promised benefits (like VA spending).

The politifacts check cleared that up for me again. But even excluding mandatory spending that chart is a bit off from the meme.

Also who's to say if we did say expand health care that it wouldn't all become specially taxed mandatory spending. In which case it is beyond the scope of the more limited comparison. If we are talking about what we spend in total on public programs versus what we spend on defense I think we have to include "mandatory" spending to keep things in perspective. Who's to say what wont be mandatory social spending tomorrow.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 03:35:02 PM by RangerOne »

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1911
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2425 on: February 27, 2017, 03:41:20 PM »
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

In some regards, the ACA worked as designed. By creating a plan -- any plan -- the Democrats made it very difficult to go back. Now, TrumpCare is forced to include some of the non-controversial aspects of ACA.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5890
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2426 on: February 27, 2017, 03:43:55 PM »
54 billion in military spending with no major conflicts.  I guess deficits don't matter again?
worth noting: the proposed increase in military spending is about what we spend annually on science and transportation combined.
Source.

I don't know where that pie chart comes from but I am pretty sure it is either straight out wrong or misleading. We spend a lot on Military but if you include social security and medicare spending it puts things more in perspective. I think some charts leave this out because medicare and social are our two largest expenditures and are supposed to be self sustaining through specific taxes beyond our federal income tax.

SSI and Medicare/Medicaid are mandatory spending.  The chart (and the website behind it) are referring to discretionary spending, as referenced in the chart title.
This is the whole issue with federal budgets; it cannot touch mandatory spending, which makes up >64% of the total federal revenue.  About 6% annually goes towawrd paying interest on the debt, which leaves just 30% of the $3.8T up for alteration year to year (plus, of course, deficit spending).  But even within the discretionary category that are promised benefits (like VA spending).

The politifacts check cleared that up for me again. But even excluding mandatory spending that chart is a bit off from the meme.

Also who's to say if we did say expand health care that it wouldn't all become specially taxed mandatory spending. In which case it is beyond the scope of the more limited comparison. If we are talking about what we spend in total on public programs versus what we spend on defense I think we have to include "mandatory" spending to keep things in perspective. Who's to say what wont be mandatory social spending tomorrow.

Well the chart politifacts reviewed was misleading from the start in part because it lacked a title (i.e. did not say discretionary spending).

Discretionary spending is what can be influenced on an annual basis by the passing of the federal budget.  Mandatory is required by existing law, and cannot be changed except with the passage of a NEW law. I agree that it's important to keep things in perspective, and worth noting that SSI and Medicare both cost more than the military.  But since the topic was DJT's changes in the military budget it only makes sense to consider discretionary spending, since this is the only spending he and the GOP will be dealing with in their budget proposals.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Unique User

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2427 on: February 27, 2017, 05:08:46 PM »
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

Nobody = him.  Everyone else knew damn well that health care is complicated.  Where is his plan that he touted during the campaign?  Oh right, it's complicated. 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8232
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2428 on: February 27, 2017, 06:33:42 PM »
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

Nobody = him.  Everyone else knew damn well that health care is complicated.  Where is his plan that he touted during the campaign?  Oh right, it's complicated.

No, not complicated.  Lies are pretty straight forward.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2429 on: February 27, 2017, 07:29:44 PM »
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
I choked on my bourbon when I read this...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2430 on: February 27, 2017, 07:43:02 PM »
54 billion in military spending with no major conflicts.  I guess deficits don't matter again?
worth noting: the proposed increase in military spending is about what we spend annually on science and transportation combined.
Source.

So if we cut both of those there is no spending increase! That's Bigly League thinking!
Genius!

But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades. This doesn't mean that more is better, but it's not as if ensuring free trade for every country on the planet and worldwide energy access is worthless. People take it for granted, but this was not always so.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Retire-Canada

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3820
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2431 on: February 27, 2017, 07:52:18 PM »
People take it for granted, but this was not always so.

There are lots of people on the planet that would label the US as an aggressor nation and not get behind your statement. Just depends on what side of the various geopolitical conflicts you sympathize with.

The Spanish and the British would have said the same thing at one point in time. Not everyone was sad to see their empires fade.

Abe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 741
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2432 on: February 27, 2017, 08:04:05 PM »
Official budget office chart:

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/52xxx/52408-Land-Budget_Overall.png

2/3 of spending is SS, Medicare, Medicaid grants, veterans benefits in order of most to least cost.
Small amount is interest on our debts.
Slightly less than half of the remainder is defense (0.5 trillion) and slightly more than half is the rest of the federal government.

If he keeps budget neutral then shift of 58 billion from rest of government to defense. Total shifted amount of $58 billion is 1.3% of total budget, 4.8% of discretionary spending and 9% of non-defense discretionary budget. Hardly earth-shattering.


On a side note, I was surprised by how much revenue comes from payroll taxes compared to federal income tax, since the former is such a small fraction of my family's total taxes
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 08:11:02 PM by Abe »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2433 on: February 27, 2017, 08:10:29 PM »
I will just have to disagree with you that Bretton Woods is equal to the colonization by Europeans. Certainly it hasn't helped everyone, and the system is far from perfect, but global u.s. navy guaranteed free trade has raised the standard of living for far more people than it has hurt.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 08:06:14 AM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Abe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 741
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2434 on: February 27, 2017, 08:15:57 PM »
I agree with MM that US naval presence is a major factor in trade stability, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. The USSR would clearly have had an advantage in that region if the US didn't have a big navy presence after WW2, potentially severely curtailing the economic advancement of east Asia. Keep in mind this may have also inhibited China's trade development, which has been the single biggest factor in the decrease in poverty in the world over the last 30 years. All of this is speculation to some extent, but a convincing argument can be made. There's fewer episodes of US as an aggressor nation with the conventional Navy (excluding marines and SEALs) in particular.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2435 on: February 27, 2017, 10:44:57 PM »
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades. This doesn't mean that more is better, but it's not as if ensuring free trade for every country on the planet and worldwide energy access is worthless. People take it for granted, but this was not always so.

And here I thought Economics had something to do with the fact that nations engaged in free trade would act in their own best interests, which includes treating their trading partners like customers. 

This thread has seriously gone off the rails with some people making valid, documentable points and others regurgitating fake news and crackpot theories.
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5003
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2436 on: February 27, 2017, 10:55:22 PM »
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.
And here I thought Economics had something to do with the fact that nations engaged in free trade would act in their own best interests, which includes treating their trading partners like customers. 

Let's put a finer point on it, instead of dancing around the issue.  The United States Navy is the reason international cargo ships, and oil tankers in particular, are the lowest cost global shipping option by tonnage.  Globalization as an economic model absolutely depends on those cargo ships, which depend on the US Navy.  Piracy and naval blockades used to be a real force in the rise and fall of nations. 

The US protects global shipping lanes, particularly around oil-rich regions, for the benefit of the global economy.  American citizens pay for most of that protection, that everyone else enjoys.

Trump can't make up his mind.  One day he says he wants to "renegotiate" all of these deals so that other countries "pay their fair share" and the very next day he says wants to charge American taxpayers billions more dollars so that the US military can do even more on behalf of other countries.  He doesn't seem to have any coherent policy position, any centerline view of the world that guides his decisions, other than "what will make me personally the most money."

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2437 on: February 27, 2017, 11:51:14 PM »
That at least makes sense Sol.  But as a businessman, one would think Trump would want to pull up some data on just how much naval force is really required to maintain free trade.  I would argue that it is less than we currently have, but then again I'm not President so I can't pull in the experts and form an educated opinion.  Sure, there was piracy in Somalia, but market forces adjusted such that transport found alternate routes or built in a wider berth.  There were relatively cheap options to counter as opposed to sending naval fleets.  And we're not in pre-globalization times where our competitors threaten blockades.  It would get pretty ugly if Russia sank a Chinese container ship headed for the US or formed a blockade, and what would they gain?  Threatening to militaristically interfere in global trade would make just about every country their enemy.

I guess I'm in the camp with others as to why defense spending has just now become our nation's highest priority.  Especially since we seem to have no idea if we just lost a cyber war last year.  Maybe redirecting current spending to plug some existing holes would make more sense.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 11:52:53 PM by EscapeVelocity2020 »
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

Abe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 741
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2438 on: February 28, 2017, 01:38:53 AM »
I think Trump's thinking is "I need a big win to look awesome, ISIS is on their rear foot, maybe I just throw some more money at that war and Bam! Mission Accomplished Redux!"

This would go along with his amazing lack of understanding of global affairs, and his behavior that everyone and everything is a commodity, including soldiers. The smartest possible use of the extra money would probably be training more special operators and developing human intelligence resources in the mid-East. Neither of those are particularly lucrative for defense contractors in the US though. Plus you won't ever get anything named after you (U.S.S Trump, anyone?). And, most importantly, those things don't just happen overnight. Let's see if he remembers about them and his grand plan against ISIS by the time the build-up is done. Hopefully Mr McMaster can educate some sense into him.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5890
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2439 on: February 28, 2017, 05:38:00 AM »
Fun fact!  Of our military spending, the Navy gets the most of the 6 branches, with $380B (43%).  The Army is next at $245B.
As others have said the US Navy has served an incredibly useful service in allowing for international commerce to flow relatively safely throughout the world. 

My issue with increasing spending is that we're not doing it because international shipping is suddenly becoming anarchy. It's about maintaining global superiority by a large margin regardless of the fact that we're already outspending everyone else by an almost comical margin (e.g. more than 2x China's military budget, 4x Russia).
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8232
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2440 on: February 28, 2017, 06:32:11 AM »
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.

I agree with you on the US navy.  Generally speaking, they've been a powerful force for good in the world over the past seventy years.  Trade tends to benefit peace, as Sol pointed out.

It's very hard to agree with you regarding the US Air Force and the US Army.  The US Air Force is regularly engaged in acts of terror (the only real difference between be-headings and drone strikes is that one side openly televises their cruelty, the other side hides it out of shame - they both kill a lot of innocent people, they both operate outside of any real legal system).  The US Army openly operates kidnapping and torture facilities that are completely outside of the rule of law and in contravention of international law.

Neither of these actions are responsible for world peace (and a fair amount of evidence points to them being a cause of destabilization and radicalization in the world).

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2441 on: February 28, 2017, 10:16:04 AM »
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades. This doesn't mean that more is better, but it's not as if ensuring free trade for every country on the planet and worldwide energy access is worthless. People take it for granted, but this was not always so.

And here I thought Economics had something to do with the fact that nations engaged in free trade would act in their own best interests, which includes treating their trading partners like customers. 
How did that work out throughout history? You are clearly viewing things through a modern lens and missing the broader trends in history. Several other posters have pointed this out. Not all military spending is justified, and a huge increase likely has greatly diminished returns, but saying things like "market forces would ensure free trade" is a baseless claim that clearly contradicts all historical fact and the view of modern study on this subject.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2442 on: February 28, 2017, 12:57:32 PM »
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.

I agree with you on the US navy.  Generally speaking, they've been a powerful force for good in the world over the past seventy years.  Trade tends to benefit peace, as Sol pointed out.

It's very hard to agree with you regarding the US Air Force and the US Army.  The US Air Force is regularly engaged in acts of terror (the only real difference between be-headings and drone strikes is that one side openly televises their cruelty, the other side hides it out of shame - they both kill a lot of innocent people, they both operate outside of any real legal system).  The US Army openly operates kidnapping and torture facilities that are completely outside of the rule of law and in contravention of international law.

Neither of these actions are responsible for world peace (and a fair amount of evidence points to them being a cause of destabilization and radicalization in the world).

There is another difference between our drone strikes and terrorist attacks and that is simple intent. The US military and our policy in general has very different mind set and intent behind it than terrorist attacks. You may not agree with our use of force outside the bounds of or country to attempt stabilize or reshape foreign power balance but the innocents we kill as collateral are a far cry different than intentionally targeting innocent people for execution to send a message.

If you don't acknowledge that difference you are doing a great disservice to those who are trying to keep us safe and make the world safer in general even if it means we chose to take human lives to achieve that goal.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5003
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2443 on: February 28, 2017, 01:15:41 PM »
There is another difference between our drone strikes and terrorist attacks and that is simple intent.

I don't think intent matters much to the Pakistani farmer who watches his wife and all of his children bleed to death after an invisible robot explodes his house.  He legitimately hates us regardless of our intent.

You may think the drone war is justified, but it is just as effective at terrorizing and radicalizing people as are beheadings.  From their point of view, each bloody knife decapitation murder streamed live on Facebook is just a tiny bit of pushback against the impersonal industrialized mass murder from the skies that they live with every day.

Gondolin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2444 on: February 28, 2017, 01:18:52 PM »
I very much doubt we'll see anything close to a $54B increase over BCA spending levels. This number is just Trump's 'big ask' which he expects will be negotiated downward. Then, he can claim that he 'tried to fix' the military but, was blocked by Democrats and Tea Party Republicans while still placating the services with some budget increase.


Quote
Threatening to militaristically interfere in global trade would make just about every country their enemy.
You would think that this would be true and that no one would be willing to get involved in major wars due to the economic disruption that would ensue.

Yet, people were saying the same things in June 1914 and it turns out they were very wrong. Maybe, it's more true now than it was then. We won't know until the crisis point occurs.
"There cannot be two skies"

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8232
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2445 on: February 28, 2017, 01:32:52 PM »
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.

I agree with you on the US navy.  Generally speaking, they've been a powerful force for good in the world over the past seventy years.  Trade tends to benefit peace, as Sol pointed out.

It's very hard to agree with you regarding the US Air Force and the US Army.  The US Air Force is regularly engaged in acts of terror (the only real difference between be-headings and drone strikes is that one side openly televises their cruelty, the other side hides it out of shame - they both kill a lot of innocent people, they both operate outside of any real legal system).  The US Army openly operates kidnapping and torture facilities that are completely outside of the rule of law and in contravention of international law.

Neither of these actions are responsible for world peace (and a fair amount of evidence points to them being a cause of destabilization and radicalization in the world).

There is another difference between our drone strikes and terrorist attacks and that is simple intent. The US military and our policy in general has very different mind set and intent behind it than terrorist attacks. You may not agree with our use of force outside the bounds of or country to attempt stabilize or reshape foreign power balance but the innocents we kill as collateral are a far cry different than intentionally targeting innocent people for execution to send a message.

If you don't acknowledge that difference you are doing a great disservice to those who are trying to keep us safe and make the world safer in general even if it means we chose to take human lives to achieve that goal.

That's certainly what the people doing the illegal executions have been telling you.  While I'd like to believe that the people in the US Air Force aren't intentionally targeting innocent Muslims for death and to send a message, I would seriously challenge you to prove it.

This is a program without much transparency, theoretically overseen by congress but run by many of the same people who were exposed for lying to congress about torture programs they previously oversaw (http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/cia-drone-killings-get-scant-congressional-oversight/).  Much of the decision making surrounding these murders also resides in the hands of the president . . . and the current president of America has advocated murdering innocent people to send a message:

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families".

FIRE me

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1100
  • Location: Louisville, KY
  • So much technology, so little talent.
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2446 on: February 28, 2017, 01:50:44 PM »
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

In some regards, the ACA worked as designed. By creating a plan -- any plan -- the Democrats made it very difficult to go back. Now, TrumpCare is forced to include some of the non-controversial aspects of ACA.

Based on the news today, little if any of Obamacare is considered uncontroversial by all. The headline I saw said that some Republicans are not supporting the Trump's repeal of Obamacare. Reading the item, it turned out that they don't want to keep elements of Obamacare. They are saying that Trump's repeal isn't going nearly far enough.
FIRE'd on January 4, 2017

OthalaFehu

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 61
    • OthalaFehu
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2447 on: February 28, 2017, 01:53:32 PM »
Personally, I expect the Great Lakes to burst into flames any day now.
One Day a Rains will come and wash away all you see before you, through Othala kept the true. https://othalafehu.wordpress.com

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2448 on: February 28, 2017, 02:20:28 PM »
For the record:

Donald Trump is a pig. He is a filthy, disgusting, immoral, shameless pig.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-suggests-jewish-community-spreading-anti-semitic-threats-article-1.2984866

"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2449 on: February 28, 2017, 02:48:01 PM »
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.

I agree with you on the US navy.  Generally speaking, they've been a powerful force for good in the world over the past seventy years.  Trade tends to benefit peace, as Sol pointed out.

It's very hard to agree with you regarding the US Air Force and the US Army.  The US Air Force is regularly engaged in acts of terror (the only real difference between be-headings and drone strikes is that one side openly televises their cruelty, the other side hides it out of shame - they both kill a lot of innocent people, they both operate outside of any real legal system).  The US Army openly operates kidnapping and torture facilities that are completely outside of the rule of law and in contravention of international law.

Neither of these actions are responsible for world peace (and a fair amount of evidence points to them being a cause of destabilization and radicalization in the world).

There is another difference between our drone strikes and terrorist attacks and that is simple intent. The US military and our policy in general has very different mind set and intent behind it than terrorist attacks. You may not agree with our use of force outside the bounds of or country to attempt stabilize or reshape foreign power balance but the innocents we kill as collateral are a far cry different than intentionally targeting innocent people for execution to send a message.

If you don't acknowledge that difference you are doing a great disservice to those who are trying to keep us safe and make the world safer in general even if it means we chose to take human lives to achieve that goal.

That's certainly what the people doing the illegal executions have been telling you.  While I'd like to believe that the people in the US Air Force aren't intentionally targeting innocent Muslims for death and to send a message, I would seriously challenge you to prove it.

This is a program without much transparency, theoretically overseen by congress but run by many of the same people who were exposed for lying to congress about torture programs they previously oversaw (http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/cia-drone-killings-get-scant-congressional-oversight/).  Much of the decision making surrounding these murders also resides in the hands of the president . . . and the current president of America has advocated murdering innocent people to send a message:

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families".

Trump is a special kind of idiot who does uncharacteristically support torture and acts of retribution against innocent people. This is not a quote I would attribute to any other recent President....

The burden of proof goes both ways. Show me declassified reports where we intentionally are targeting innocent family members for execution to send a message. Show me instances were we intentionally go after entirely non-military targets to scare a countries people into submission.

How far does calling our military strikes terrorism go? We dropped nukes on two Japanese cities filled with innocent people. Are those terrorist attacks? If we are a state of perpetual conflict with countries who can't control terrorist activities then what level of retaliation is okay to not be considers terrorists ourselves?

Should we attempt to kill known terrorists with bombs or should we send in a band of middle American 19 year old boys trained as killers to hunt them down and bring them in alive to stand trial risking all their lives? What level of decorum is fitting for people who would behead civilians on live broadcast and send young men into a crowded location wearing suicide vests?

These are not easy questions to answer and there is certainly grey area, but if you can't or chose not distinguish, between a country using its military to go after individuals we feel are mortal threats to our people and extremists who's only goal is to maim and kill civilians to send a message then I think you are making a false equivalence between our actions and the actions of terrorists.

I think you have a stronger argument if you want to consider whether excessive collateral damage is breading the next wave of terrorism. But it is still collateral damage as long as we are not intentionally seeking to kill civilians and actively trying to avoid doing so.