Trump's 7 point Drain the Swamp Plan & 100 Day Agenda

[QMany]

 

"Consequences"

 

[zoogs]

A federal government that forces private corporations not to outsource at the edge of a knife?

 

How "free market, small government" of them. Conservatives on this board, are you a fan of this?

 

--

Back to the ACA: A conservative health pundit and vocal ACA critic on the GOP's 3-year delay plan:

 

Sarah Kliff

So let’s say you’re in the Trump administration. You want to stabilize the marketplaces because you fear the political blowback of their collapse, and millions losing coverage. Can you do that — and how do you do that?

 

Robert Laszewski

What you do is subsidize the carriers. You reactivate some of the policies that were meant to stabilize the marketplace in the early years, the three R’s. [Risk adjustment, reinsurance, and risk corridors, all programs that subsidize insurance carriers that have significant losses. You can read an explainer on them here.]

 

But these are the things that Republicans have hated. This is what they call an insurance company bailout. But keeping them around is the only way to maintain a viable market. The problem is when you have an insurance market and the new administration declares it DOA, it will go into death throes. It will be a death spiral. The Trump administration will have put it in a death spiral. The only way to fix that is if you subsidize the market. If you just subsidize the consumers, that doesn’t do any good if you don’t subsidize the carriers.

[TGHusker]

 

 

zoogs, that last paragraph is what must have been on Obama's mind when he's looking at Trump during their meeting. His look is a mixture of scorn and pity.

 

 

Obama knows what Trump's getting himself into. He knows how difficult Trump's life is going to be these next few years. You can see it in the grim lines of his face.

Does Donald not wear a wedding ring? Just curious, sorry to derail the discussion.

 

They can't make one small enough to stay on his tiny fingers.

 

You know what they say about a man with small hands! - famous political line of the primary

[TGHusker]

Zoogs - not a fan of corporate welfare in any form - except where it helps a whole industry - but not for picking out specific winners and losers.

 

 

See my post on the other Republican thread on the subject. Here it is:

 

Corporations both businesses and sports teams (think huge new stadiums) have learned to feast at the public troth. Corporate welfare is a problem on all levels of governance - Federal bank and auto bailouts, States compete wt other States for a business, Cities within those states give benefits to draw them to their city. If Trump wants to 'fix Washington' he needs to deal wt this type of welfare as well as individual welfare programs. Unfortunately, as you note, Trump's own businesses grew by taking advantage of these benefits. So at what level does govt determine corp winners and losers? - how many employees, dollar value of sales or assets, or amount donated to politicians/parties??

 

I do believe govt has a role in fostering business. Helping emerging industries, incubation process, tax incentives for bring jobs back to the USA. When the govt has a 'Big Idea' like NASA was in the 1960s it spurs all kinds of development for businesses directly and indirectly. Energy can do the same during our current time frame. Yes, drill baby drill, but a NASA type program for future energy development would go a long way in securing energy independence not only for us but for nations around the world. It would also end the need for Mideast wars and lesson our involvement in the MD- let the terrorist just fight amongst themselves - we have no need of them or their land's resources. Trump is talking about infrastructure - if we are going to spend billions then think futuristic -now. Highways that manage driverless cars with embedded technology that interact wt vehicles. Get the govt involved in these big ideas and watch industry grow around those ideas.

 

While there is a certain truth that the best govt is local govt (closest to the need) and also small govt (not in everyone's business), there is also the truth that the best govt is that which thinks the biggest - using innovative ideas to solve our problems wt health, infrastructure, education, etc. We don't have enough big thinkers in govt. Maybe because too many have never been in business where you have to be innovative to survive. Govt leaders should do a 'Walk a Mile' in the lives of business leaders to understand how to think wt innovation. The govt could reform itself to be more efficient. Do we really need them to meet in DC all year long where they are exposed to lobbyists and group think. Why not use technology and work out of their local office where they are closer to the people and go to DC once a quarter or less??

[cornstar]

 

 

 

 

 

The irony of a red-blooded Trump supporter getting offended anyone called someone a name is astounding.

 

Any who, this Carrier thing illustrates an important point. Trump will try to buffalo the American public on pretty much any given issue. He's a pathological liar. A free, competent press is really going to be important during his administration. He's already showing tendencies of a serious lack of transparency, and what he does release for public consumption is most likely going to be half-truths at best and outright lies at worst.

 

The press is going to need to dig in and find the truth on this stuff, much like the Carrier story. It's an interesting dichotomy though since he has spent so much time berating the press and convincing anyone who would listen that they were crooked scum.

 

We'll just have to see how many people buy that.

I'm only offended by some of the incompetent statements and comparisons being made on this board. Most Trump supporters now wear the Deplorable label as a badge of honor as it exposed the left for what it really has become...a bicoastal party of elites that looks down upon middle America.

Which isn't anything close to what she meant by the statement.

It's easier to play the victim and feel offended than it is to self-examine and possibly find out you were wrong.

Rich.

[VectorVictor]

 

 

zoogs, that last paragraph is what must have been on Obama's mind when he's looking at Trump during their meeting. His look is a mixture of scorn and pity.

 

 

Obama knows what Trump's getting himself into. He knows how difficult Trump's life is going to be these next few years. You can see it in the grim lines of his face.

Does Donald not wear a wedding ring? Just curious, sorry to derail the discussion.

 

They can't make one small enough to stay on his tiny fingers.

 

 

Nonsense--my daughter has costume jewelry she plays with that would fit his tiny fingers.

[BigRedBuster]

So....let me try to understand this.

 

Let's say I'm a competitor of Carrier and have a plant here in Nebraska. I have been fighting to keep the jobs here because I think that's important. However, my margins are extremely low doing so.

 

NOW....I have to compete with a company that not only still keeps jobs in the US but also had big tax breaks and incentives to do so that I don't get.

 

Is this seriously how we are going to handle industry in this country? Do I need to threaten to move my plant to Mexico so that he swoops in and allows me to compete on a level playing field?

[NM11046]

In my simple mind - if I'm an underperforming company I just tweet to Donnie that I'm taking my jobs to Mexico and he'll give me money, (then brag about saving jobs) and I'll send half of them to Mexico anyway.

[zoogs]

1. The fight over what's 'presidential':

 

Asked by Mr. Tapper whether Mr. Trump’s recent posting of misinformation on Twitter about millions of undocumented immigrants voting was presidential, Ms. Conway defended the message.

 

“He’s the president-elect, so that’s presidential behavior,” she said.

Rise of the tautology?

 

2.

 

FFS, America. PopSci with coverage, and some subtle shade:

 

The Breitbart article implores readers not to seek information on climate change from fake news sources. To learn more about climate change, check out our coverage on PopSci.com.

[TGHusker]

In my simple mind - if I'm an underperforming company I just tweet to Donnie that I'm taking my jobs to Mexico and he'll give me money, (then brag about saving jobs) and I'll send half of them to Mexico anyway.

So, if a person is a conservative, how should someone look at the Carrier deal? My perspective and I'm not saying this is a litmus test for conservatives, is this: Conservatives are suppose to believe in private property rights, we are suppose to believe in free enterprise and self determination, equal opportunity but not equal results (results are determined by work ethic/effort, talents/abilities/skills/knowledge etc), so it is hypocritical in my view to believe in these values while supporting corporate welfare or crony capitalism. Again, I believe govt can level the playing field for all industries in general (or a target industry) via incentives and tax policy and doing what govt can only do - build (finance) the infrastructure in support of industry. So, I'm not excited about the Carrier deal because I think it sets us up for a continuation of this process - company threatens to leave, govt bribes them to stay.

 

Trump threatens companies that leave. This is opposite the conservative values I note above. Self determination is violated by these individual threats. It smacks a bit of "dictatorism". Example: If Texas has a better corp tax policy than Calif and a business decides to leave Ca in favor of Tx, California cannot threaten the company with 'exit taxes'. In the same way, Texas doesn't have an income tax, should Ca penalize citizens who leave for a state that has overall better tax policy and lessor burden. Trump should stop the threats and place emphasis on the positive things govt can do to lure companies back to the USA and keep businesses here. Trump should responded to Carrier and ask them what regulations were overly burdensome for them to consider to leave (I understand that was a major consideration in their decision to relocate the plant to Mexico). Then work on reducing the overall govt burden (tax, regulations) on all industries. Then perhaps they not only keep Carrier, they would keep multiple other businesses without having to bribe them to stay. Gov't should provide incentives for development of new industries (energy for example) and relief for old industries to remove burdens that keep them from being competitive or enable them to modernize. Create a level playing field for equal opportunity but allow the best to survive - not equal results.

 

However, even old industries fade and at some point we need to recognize that. We can not create enough incentives to bring back the horse buggy industry.

Ok - I guess that is rant # 2. So it deserves this:

[Moiraine]

I support tariffs, if I can use a time machine and go back to 1980.

 

We shouldn't have allowed companies to outsource to countries that violate human rights with their working conditions without making them pay a price for it.

 

But it'd probably too late now to just say we're going to start making that stuff again.

[zoogs]

Re: Carrier, I think there's a general expectation that this won't, in fact, continue, and is a small-scale PR stunt so Trump can sustain his rhetoric. Corporations seek and obtain corporate welfare from states all the time already, often for political benefit. As knapp pointed out, though, the political optics diverge from the actual benefits, which *should* be the criteria when it comes to public resources.

 

On the other hand, I wonder if people aren't trying to think away the dangers here. What if, buoyed by this rhetoric, Trump does try to continue this with a flailing, damaging set of protectionist tactics? What if the Trump administration regularly deploys corporate favors (and threats) in exchange for falling in line in other ways?

 

Remember, more than $7 million over 10 years, Carrier had its parent company's massive defense contracts to think about.

[BigRedBuster]

 

In my simple mind - if I'm an underperforming company I just tweet to Donnie that I'm taking my jobs to Mexico and he'll give me money, (then brag about saving jobs) and I'll send half of them to Mexico anyway.

So, if a person is a conservative, how should someone look at the Carrier deal? My perspective and I'm not saying this is a litmus test for conservatives, is this: Conservatives are suppose to believe in private property rights, we are suppose to believe in free enterprise and self determination, equal opportunity but not equal results (results are determined by work ethic/effort, talents/abilities/skills/knowledge etc), so it is hypocritical in my view to believe in these values while supporting corporate welfare or crony capitalism. Again, I believe govt can level the playing field for all industries in general (or a target industry) via incentives and tax policy and doing what govt can only do - build (finance) the infrastructure in support of industry. So, I'm not excited about the Carrier deal because I think it sets us up for a continuation of this process - company threatens to leave, govt bribes them to stay.

 

Trump threatens companies that leave. This is opposite the conservative values I note above. Self determination is violated by these individual threats. It smacks a bit of "dictatorism". Example: If Texas has a better corp tax policy than Calif and a business decides to leave Ca in favor of Tx, California cannot threaten the company with 'exit taxes'. In the same way, Texas doesn't have an income tax, should Ca penalize citizens who leave for a state that has overall better tax policy and lessor burden. Trump should stop the threats and place emphasis on the positive things govt can do to lure companies back to the USA and keep businesses here. Trump should responded to Carrier and ask them what regulations were overly burdensome for them to consider to leave (I understand that was a major consideration in their decision to relocate the plant to Mexico). Then work on reducing the overall govt burden (tax, regulations) on all industries. Then perhaps they not only keep Carrier, they would keep multiple other businesses without having to bribe them to stay. Gov't should provide incentives for development of new industries (energy for example) and relief for old industries to remove burdens that keep them from being competitive or enable them to modernize. Create a level playing field for equal opportunity but allow the best to survive - not equal results.

 

However, even old industries fade and at some point we need to recognize that. We can not create enough incentives to bring back the horse buggy industry.

Ok - I guess that is rant # 2. So it deserves this:

 

I've asked before and I don't believe I have received an answer. Why exactly was Carrier wanting to move the production? This is an big question in this and it's not as simple as many on either side want to make it out to be. It very well might not be..."those greedy owners just want to pad their pockets". It also is almost impossible to look at the overall Revenue or Income of the parent company and make the same claim about those greedy owners. These issues tend to be very complex. We would need to know the profitability of that specific product line. How efficient that plant is/was...etc....among many other factors. It's possible that the parent company is making 50 billion per year but this product line is at break even or worse. If that's the case, then the options are either move it or stop producing it. Either way, the workers were going to be out.

 

Now. I'm not excited or impressed at all with this "deal" that is being made in the grand scheme of things. This type of thing is not sustainable and it doesn't positively affect anyone but an extremely small part of Americans.

 

BUT....what we need to look at is what I discussed in my first paragraph. Government needs to make America THE place companies want to produce in....while at the same time protecting employees and the environment.

 

This can be done. But, for way too long both sides have been talking past each other and ignoring issues so they can garner votes every two years.

[VectorVictor]

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-11/exxon-ceo-tillerson-emerging-as-trump-s-secretary-of-state-pick

 

Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson is emerging as Donald Trump’s choice as secretary of state, a move that would hand top diplomatic powers to a man whose ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin go back almost two decades.

A source close to Trump said the president-elect had not formally offered Tillerson the job yet but is likely to do so. An announcement is expected in the next few days, according to the person, who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations. NBC earlier reported that Tillerson was Trump’s pick. Tillerson met with Trump for more than two hours on Saturday.

 

 

Huh...looks less and less like he's draining the swamp, and more like he's creating a Noah's Ark for vermin.

 

[Moiraine]

So Trump is trying to delegitimize the CIA. Wonder who's next. Congress and the Supreme Court?