Trump's America

[NM11046]

So he can cheat. Can't brag anout those birdies if the press is watching.

[Ratt Mhule]

Spicer reminds me of an SS agent when the Hitler was in power. When sh#t hits the fan, as it most likely will before Trumps term ends, he will claim he was told to say and do everything and that it was his job. I hope he goes down in flames just like Trump.

[TGHusker]

 

This should probably be its own topic, but:

 

What is the small government/free market proponent's answer when it comes to things that are unprofitable (directly) but good for society? For instance: orphanages, assistance for pregnant/nursing women and kids, protecting the environment, pell grants.

 

These aren't profitable things. Take the environment for example. If there are no emissions/pollution laws, is there any profit in researching and implementing new products that produce energy that limit emissions/pollution?

 

I saw on Twitter just yesterday that the Trump DOJ is challenging the CFPB's appeal of the ruling that their structure is unconstitutional.

 

The CFPB is not good for business. It was designed to be good for the people. The DOJ wants the clause that says the CFPB head can only be fired "for cause." In other words, they want to get rid of an Obama appointee that helped people so Trump can appoint some Goldman Sachs power player to neuter the agency that is bad for business.

 

What you described would be one way to fix the ACA as well. Short of shifting to a different program like single-payer, when the bill was implemented, the Dems lowered the subsidy amounts as a concession to the GOP to try to make the bill seem more fiscally responsible. That was a huge mistake. In return, we got more premium in creases.

 

This could be fixed, but it would require more government spending in order to help we the people.

 

In other words, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Trump, Bannon, Goldman Sachs et al. won't have it.

 

To Moiraine's question:

Govt isn't about what is profitable. While I believe in efficient govt which tends towards smaller govt but not as a set in stone rule, govt can never be evaluated strictly from a business profit and loss, cost vs benefits point of view. Business methods/ideas can help with efficiencies but our govt cannot ever be run like a business. Part of govt's role is to take care of the people and the issues Moiraine brings up. There is always a cost to those programs without offsetting return that can be easily measure. One could say the return's may be less $ss handed out in welfare checks eventually - as a 'handout' turns into an empowerment for example. But most of the benefit is found in society as a whole - improved enviro quality, improved quality of life for citizens, etc.

 

But I think from a budget point of view, we have to talk about sustainability also. While we would love to give everyone the moon, we can not sustain the type of debt we have accumulated over the past # of years. This is where the tough decisions come in. How much tax is sufficient to fund the govt and serve the needs of the society at a sustainable level? Will certain tax policies generate more taxes without undue burden? What are the priorities in the spending?

[knapplc]

Nobody wants the moon. They want a chance. Allowing a path out of crushing poverty isn't giving them the moon. Allowing for crazy ridiculous budgetary things like a ten percent increase in the military over the objections of the very military leaders who would benefit from it is giving someone the moon - especially when, absent that stupid increase, we could afford things like Meals on Wheels or Pell Grants.

[RedDenver]

 

 

This should probably be its own topic, but:

 

What is the small government/free market proponent's answer when it comes to things that are unprofitable (directly) but good for society? For instance: orphanages, assistance for pregnant/nursing women and kids, protecting the environment, pell grants.

 

These aren't profitable things. Take the environment for example. If there are no emissions/pollution laws, is there any profit in researching and implementing new products that produce energy that limit emissions/pollution?

 

I saw on Twitter just yesterday that the Trump DOJ is challenging the CFPB's appeal of the ruling that their structure is unconstitutional.

 

The CFPB is not good for business. It was designed to be good for the people. The DOJ wants the clause that says the CFPB head can only be fired "for cause." In other words, they want to get rid of an Obama appointee that helped people so Trump can appoint some Goldman Sachs power player to neuter the agency that is bad for business.

 

What you described would be one way to fix the ACA as well. Short of shifting to a different program like single-payer, when the bill was implemented, the Dems lowered the subsidy amounts as a concession to the GOP to try to make the bill seem more fiscally responsible. That was a huge mistake. In return, we got more premium in creases.

 

This could be fixed, but it would require more government spending in order to help we the people.

 

In other words, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Trump, Bannon, Goldman Sachs et al. won't have it.

 

To Moiraine's question:

Govt isn't about what is profitable. While I believe in efficient govt which tends towards smaller govt but not as a set in stone rule, govt can never be evaluated strictly from a business profit and loss, cost vs benefits point of view. Business methods/ideas can help with efficiencies but our govt cannot ever be run like a business. Part of govt's role is to take care of the people and the issues Moiraine brings up. There is always a cost to those programs without offsetting return that can be easily measure. One could say the return's may be less $ss handed out in welfare checks eventually - as a 'handout' turns into an empowerment for example. But most of the benefit is found in society as a whole - improved enviro quality, improved quality of life for citizens, etc.

 

But I think from a budget point of view, we have to talk about sustainability also. While we would love to give everyone the moon, we can not sustain the type of debt we have accumulated over the past # of years. This is where the tough decisions come in. How much tax is sufficient to fund the govt and serve the needs of the society at a sustainable level? Will certain tax policies generate more taxes without undue burden? What are the priorities in the spending?

 

Good points.

 

I absolutely agree that our economy and government debt/taxes needs to be sustainable, but I'll quibble slightly with your characterization of how much debt we can sustain and how long we can sustain it. First, we're still paying off the Civil War and we've had a pretty good last 150+ years, so how long we hold the debt is not a real concern. Second, the US government can print its own currency, so it can never default on a debt. (Edit: or at least not because we ran out of money. Things like the government shutdown can cause a default because we chose not to pay.) So the question of how much debt the US government can take on isn't a matter of size (at least directly), but rather a question of inflation as more currency is printed. The Fed basically printed (digitally) $4 trillion dollars in qualitative easing from 2008-2014, and inflation bottom out near zero last year and has just climbed above 2% since, so we're not up against that limit yet and the national debt is $19.8 trillion.

[Danny Bateman]

Nobody wants the moon. They want a chance. Allowing a path out of crushing poverty isn't giving them the moon. Allowing for crazy ridiculous budgetary things like a ten percent increase in the military over the objections of the very military leaders who would benefit from it is giving someone the moon - especially when, absent that stupid increase, we could afford things like Meals on Wheels or Pell Grants.

 

No one is going to accuse me of being a Trump apologist. I think the 10% increase to military is verifiably insane. I think we overspend NOW. And now we'll quite literally have people going hungry to afford it...

 

But what really grates me about his budget is that Trump just doesn't walk the walk. He sure talks the talk but he doesn't back it up. You want to shake this tree about doing less with more and eliminating waste to stremline government efficiency? And he literally said he wouldn't Medicaid. But here we are, nearly 2 months in, and he'll still vacationing to Florida every weekend at $3M a pop and giving expensive rallies to relive his campaign glory days. And he's gleefully pushing a healthcare bill that would take a sledgehammer to Medicaid.

 

Suddenly vacationing and golfing EVERY WEEKEND are part of being president? Give me a break! This guy's rhetoric doesn't match his actions at all, and thus he's a big, fat liar.

 

Plus, I find it morally bankrupt to take money from the poor and old and sick and give it to the rich in the form of tax breaks. He's reverse Robin Hood-ing vulnerable people.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

This should probably be its own topic, but:

 

What is the small government/free market proponent's answer when it comes to things that are unprofitable (directly) but good for society? For instance: orphanages, assistance for pregnant/nursing women and kids, protecting the environment, pell grants.

 

These aren't profitable things. Take the environment for example. If there are no emissions/pollution laws, is there any profit in researching and implementing new products that produce energy that limit emissions/pollution?

I saw on Twitter just yesterday that the Trump DOJ is challenging the CFPB's appeal of the ruling that their structure is unconstitutional.

 

The CFPB is not good for business. It was designed to be good for the people. The DOJ wants the clause that says the CFPB head can only be fired "for cause." In other words, they want to get rid of an Obama appointee that helped people so Trump can appoint some Goldman Sachs power player to neuter the agency that is bad for business.

 

What you described would be one way to fix the ACA as well. Short of shifting to a different program like single-payer, when the bill was implemented, the Dems lowered the subsidy amounts as a concession to the GOP to try to make the bill seem more fiscally responsible. That was a huge mistake. In return, we got more premium in creases.

 

This could be fixed, but it would require more government spending in order to help we the people.

 

In other words, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Trump, Bannon, Goldman Sachs et al. won't have it.

To Moiraine's question:

Govt isn't about what is profitable. While I believe in efficient govt which tends towards smaller govt but not as a set in stone rule, govt can never be evaluated strictly from a business profit and loss, cost vs benefits point of view. Business methods/ideas can help with efficiencies but our govt cannot ever be run like a business. Part of govt's role is to take care of the people and the issues Moiraine brings up. There is always a cost to those programs without offsetting return that can be easily measure. One could say the return's may be less $ss handed out in welfare checks eventually - as a 'handout' turns into an empowerment for example. But most of the benefit is found in society as a whole - improved enviro quality, improved quality of life for citizens, etc.

 

But I think from a budget point of view, we have to talk about sustainability also. While we would love to give everyone the moon, we can not sustain the type of debt we have accumulated over the past # of years. This is where the tough decisions come in. How much tax is sufficient to fund the govt and serve the needs of the society at a sustainable level? Will certain tax policies generate more taxes without undue burden? What are the priorities in the spending?

Good post. I was going to write something similar.

 

First off...I don't think anyone is supporting Trumps budget. It's just plain idiocy.

 

An efficient and well run government does not mean you need to take away needed services. But, make sure you are providing those services as efficient as possible.

 

For instance, we all can agree we need a military. Most of us probably also agree that increasing its budget 10% is not a decision that's made while considering if it's the efficient way of doing the job. We already have the funds in the system to do the job of securing the country. We could even cut its budget and still be secure if those funds are spent wisely.

 

The dollars being spent by the government are not THEIR money. They took that money in taxes from someone to pay for things. Even if they are borrowing the money, eventually that money has to come from taxes.

 

Now, we can argue all day long about how high of taxes are fair. And, some people probably should/could be paying more. But, the fact remains, it's their money and should be spent wisely.

 

Knapp....I would have agreed with you that nobody is asking for the moon....until sanders ran for president. Free tuition for everyone is pretty darn close to that.

[FrankWheeler]

Taylor Hansen, hired by the DOE in February, “benefiting from the Trump administration’s ethics policies that allow former lobbyists to work for agencies they have recently tried to influence.”

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/for-profit-colleges-gain-beachhead-in-trump-administration

 

Resigns in March after rule gets passed benefiting Father's former company “allowing companies known to charge distressed student debtors fees equivalent to 16 percent of their total balance.”

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-20/betsy-devos-hands-victory-to-loan-firm-tied-to-adviser-who-just-quit

[Danny Bateman]

.Knapp....I would have agreed with you that nobody is asking for the moon....until sanders ran for president. Free tuition for everyone is pretty darn close to that.

 

I too thought his college plan was a bit unrealistic. But hey, several European countries offer college tuition free to select students, or at the very least at a very affordable rate.

 

And at least he talked about it. I didn't hear a single person running for the Republican nomination talk about addressing college affordability.

[zoogs]

It's not the moon. It's also, in my view, a questionable priority.

 

Fiscal responsibility is a great idea, but keep in mind the discussion currently is tantamount to "We can't afford shoes and gas, therefore walk your 5mile work commute barefoot is the only way to go."

 

The point is none of even the biggest spending proposals would break the bank, there are costs to *not* investing, and everyone kind of bases their policy on fantasy growth/shrink numbers.

[StPaulHusker]

Sanders' free tuition had merit if it would have been applied to people studying a trade that could be used in helping the US economy. For example, construction, medical, etc.. Especially those that are attending 2 year trade schools.

[Danny Bateman]

Sanders' free tuition had merit if it would have been applied to people studying a trade that could be used in helping the US economy. For example, construction, medical, etc.. Especially those that are attending 2 year trade schools.

 

YES!

 

I was always shocked that his proposal did not include any mention of trades programs. If I understand the European systems correctly, they work effectively because those countries also have extremely robust trade schools and training programs to hep those who DON'T go to college so they can also get good jobs and be productive rather quickly.

 

I think it boiled down to Bernie running on a platform of broad ideas rather than fleshing out the actual intricate details of policy. I thought that would be a detriment for him, but given that Trump won with his platform of nonsensical BS...

[StPaulHusker]

 

Sanders' free tuition had merit if it would have been applied to people studying a trade that could be used in helping the US economy. For example, construction, medical, etc.. Especially those that are attending 2 year trade schools.

 

YES!

 

I was always shocked that his proposal did not include any mention of trades programs. If I understand the European systems correctly, they work effectively because those countries also have extremely robust trade schools and training programs to hep those who DON'T go to college so they can also get good jobs and be productive rather quickly.

 

I think it boiled down to Bernie running on a platform of broad ideas rather than fleshing out the actual intricate details of policy. I thought that would be a detriment for him, but given that Trump won with his platform of nonsensical BS...

 

I'm sure that if Sanders would have been the DFL candidate and eventually won. Or even if Clinton had won and used some of what Sanders wanted to do, you would have seen the idea progress more towards what I referred to. I don't think even Sanders could justify the government paying for people to work towards degrees that may not have an immediate positive impact on the overall health of the country.

[zoogs]

Sanders' free tuition had merit if it would have been applied to people studying a trade that could be used in helping the US economy. For example, construction, medical, etc.. Especially those that are attending 2 year trade schools.

I'm not against supporting trade programs, but I dislike the heavily utilitarian approach we take to education sometimes. Even as someone with a STEM degree, I think culture is our backbone and a classical liberal arts education is, if anything, severely underprioritized. That, too, comes with cost.

 

Also, with a lot of these direct-to-economy trade programs, we can offer support for them in ways that don't replace or supersede support for college education. These are the kinds of jobs I suspect will fall under the "oh, wow, technology advanced and all of a sudden all these very specifically trained people without a higher education degree need to be retrained" category.

 

This is partly what I mean by investment. If we took the same approach to science research and poured money only into obviously economically relevant stuff, that's where you end up in policies that deprive the NIH of funding and expect to be happy with whatever the profit-focused private sector wants to study. But we know that discovery and innovation come from all sources; study is a pursuit in itself.

 

Ultimately we're investing in a voting citizenry. We cannot complain about their ability to discern our values and traditions when all we care about in policy is pushing these people to be single-trade single-skilled utility workers because who cares about "no value" education.

[BigRedBuster]