President Trump's First 100 Days..Are You Happy ?

[Deletedaccount1]

I mean, I'm all for removing pointless, inefficient or ineffective regulation. But the arbitrary measure by which he does it, "remove 2 for everyone new 1 added." Just seems like a lazy way to force deregulation. From reading the executive order, it doesn't seem like it actually does much either besides just force them to propose regulations to be removed. It's still possible that they just decide not to remove the proposed regulations while going ahead and adding a new one.

The "Remove 2 for 1" rule is crude for sure but it is necessary to force self-interested public servants into cutting back on useless spending because they have no incentive to do so otherwise.

Some departments and agencies have gotten so bloated that this rule is the only way they can be fixed from the inside. An example being Housing and Urban Development which has received terrible audit reports for years.

- - - Updated - - -

Medicare, medicaid.

Every bit helps but you are right. Trump has refused to touch those things so he will never be "the great deregulator" but considering how bankrolled every politician in Washington is by the AARP, I don't think that there will ever be a president who can fix those programs before one of them eventually runs out of money.

[unbound]

He has failed in his 100 day promises. But he has succeeded in the one area that he really cared about...enriching himself and his family.

While the rubes are in awe that he is giving up his salary, they are studiously ignoring the fact that he is raking in millions of dollars a year by virtue of what his businesses charge the government to support security and other groups at his Mar-a-Lago business, his Trump hotel (where his estranged wife and child reside), his golf courses, etc, etc.

The economy hasn't crashed, but it also isn't growing like it should have either. US GDP growth the first quarter was only 0.7% compared to the expected 2% to 3%.

Most of Trump's executive orders have been a show with most lacking substance, and the few others being tied up in courts because neither Trump nor his advisers seem to understand how the law in the US works.

Trump has insulted pretty much every allied nation we have in that short span of 100 days. Despite the fun story of Democratic interference, the reality is that Trump is months behind in nominated people for key positions (still).

And one of the few things Trump has actually created, VOICE, is an office to produce the modern day equivalent of The Criminal Jew aimed at creating fear and distorting reality around immigrants in the US.

So, not only have 41% of the nation not learned from history in regards to VOICE and the growing authoritarianism, they aren't even paying enough attention to current affairs to see the direct correlation between Trump and family and how this works in other countries.

Once upon a time, there was a dictator who had a daughter. The dictator, who came to power vowing to make his country great, enacted a series of repressive policies under the guise of nationalism. He persecuted the media and the opposition, used “war on terror” rhetoric to justify a clampdown on civil rights, maintained a close but complicated relationship with Russia, and built a kleptocracy that ensured the country’s riches lined his pockets.

The daughter seemed different – or at least, she wanted to be seen that way. She was an Ivy League-educated cosmopolitan socialite who married into a powerful business family before making her mark as a fashion designer and businesswoman. Like her father, she encouraged an avid personality cult; and like her father, she hid her own brutal practices under the pretext of a soft “feminism”, claiming to represent the ideal modern woman of her country.

I’m talking, of course, about Uzbekistan president Islam Karimov and his daughter Gulnara Karimova. That this description evokes the burgeoning Trump political dynasty should concern you.

Worth reading the whole thing - https://thecorrespondent.com/6591/th...21147-43ede0f9

[Paranoid Android]

Wanna know who's not happy?
Donald J. Trump

Trump's latest stupidity:

This quote can be used to spin in it in many different ways. The Trumpkins will say; "Trump is being humble and realize that this is a difficult job, blah, blah, blah".

What that quote more says to me that this Orange, Lazy, piece of shit didn't do much in his business life. So people again making him a GREAT businessman when he inherited his dad's wealth and went bankrupt and bankrupted multiple businesses. Yet they bought into the Trump marketing that he is a brilliant business person.

[Lenonis]

Linking a well known conservative think tank to put forward biased analysis to support conservative policies is laughable.

And completely disingenuous since you'd be the first to laugh off anything linked from a left leaning group.

[Semune]

I've never been into politics, and view them as two sides to the same coin (dems/repubs) but I do admire the simple fact that he is at least somewhat honest.

Presidents of the past have been almost entirely made up of lies, there's something to say about telling the truth and following through with what he said he's going to do in today's day and age, regardless of how slimy his character is.

The last few presidents have been pretty much teleprompter talking heads that put us many trillions in debt ($9.5 trillion for Obama), so to see a real human being in office? Meh, I'll take it.

[Deletedaccount1]

Linking a well known conservative think tank to put forward biased analysis to support conservative policies is laughable.

And completely disingenuous since you'd be the first to laugh off anything linked from a left leaning group.

On the contrary, I do read some research from CAP and Niskanen and they promote many of the same cuts. That Heritage research relies solely on government sources from past fiscal years as the basis for its policy recommendations so you can always look at why they are suggesting what they are.

[A dot Ham]

This thread is like a lightning rod for my next infraction.

[Glorious Leader]

Linking a well known conservative think tank to put forward biased analysis to support conservative policies is laughable.

And completely disingenuous since you'd be the first to laugh off anything linked from a left leaning group.

The entire "problem" of regulation is disengenous. To have people argue in favor of less regulation after the telling example of wall street collapse is so fucking stupid. 2 for 1 is the most unsophisticated piece of nonsense. How many fucking times d we have to replay this shit? Public servants have perverse incentives but businness owners are fucking saints apparently. The koch brothers are americad best friends andif we only unti their hands and let them pollute as much as they like youll see how much better things are.

The growth of government regulation is a non problem. Yes as society grows and advances it is.necessarily more complex and the rules governing it must keep pace. THIS IS A NON FUCKING PROBLEM UNLESS YOUR WEALTHY AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRIES TO TELL YOU NO YOU CANT DO THAT. Too fucking bad and all the fucking shills who support this.crap ought to have learned from history but apparently nope weve just to give more power to the rapacious pigs whos greed knows no end.

Obstruct. Every fucking single democrat, progressive, left leaning member of the society. Obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

[Vizardlorde]

I sm quite happy with the entertainment he provides if that counts as a president on a 1 to 10 he manages to score in the negatives

[Glorious Leader]

On the contrary, I do read some research from CAP and Niskanen and they promote many of the same cuts. That Heritage research relies solely on government sources from past fiscal years as the basis for its policy recommendations so you can always look at why they are suggesting what they are.

Their suggesting what they are because they are paid too. They will purposely misrepresent data and ignore facts that dont support their arguments. They are paid apparachiks, in servitude to the greediesr and wealthiest and most powerful indivduals who seeks to prosper at the expense of their fellows and their nation. They have bought the politicial process with their wealth and creates think tanks like heritage to fight in their favor.

They should be ignored as the partisan hacks they are.

[Deletedaccount1]

The entire "problem" of regulation is disengenous. To have people argue in favor of less regulation after the telling example of wall street collapse is so fucking stupid. 2 for 1 is the most unsophisticated piece of nonsense. How many fucking times d we have to replay this shit? Public servants have perverse incentives but businness owners are fucking saints apparently. The koch brothers are americad best friends andif we only unti their hands and let them pollute as much as they like youll see how much better things are.

The growth of government regulation is a non problem. Yes as society grows and advances it is.necessarily more complex and the rules governing it must keep pace. THIS IS A NON FUCKING PROBLEM UNLESS YOUR WEALTHY AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRIES TO TELL YOU NO YOU CANT DO THAT. Too fucking bad and all the fucking shills who support this.crap ought to have learned from history but apparently nope weve just to give more power to the rapacious pigs whos greed knows no end.

Obstruct. Every fucking single democrat, progressive, left leaning member of the society. Obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

2 for 1 is definitely unsophisticated but I don't know of a quicker way of removing bloat from different agencies which frequently fail auditing and accountability reports. Business owners don't need to be saints, the way they make is not necessarily harmful to anyone. The way federal agencies acquire money and power almost ensures that they are not held accountable without deregulations in place because they have no incentives to cut the funding they receive when programs have outlived their usefulness.

The issue is really just that many policies and regulations fail a cost-benefit analysis by the admittance of those who monitor them but there exists no way of removing them from the inside without a mechanism in place like 2 for 1.

- - - Updated - - -

Their suggesting what they are because they are paid too. They will purposely misrepresent data and ignore facts that dont support their arguments. They are paid apparachiks, in servitude to the greediesr and wealthiest and most powerful indivduals who seeks to prosper at the expense of their fellows and their nation. They have bought the politicial process with their wealth and creates think tanks like heritage to fight in their favor.

They should be ignored as the partisan hacks they are.

I don't know who "they" are. If you aren't happy with the research in that report I suggest you start pointing fingers at the federal agencies that they source.

[BrerBear]

2 for 1 is definitely unsophisticated but I don't know of a quicker way of removing bloat from different agencies which frequently fail auditing and accountability reports. Business owners don't need to be saints, the way they make is not necessarily harmful to anyone. The way federal agencies acquire money and power almost ensures that they are not held accountable without deregulations in place because they have no incentives to cut the funding they receive when programs have outlived their usefulness.

The issue is really just that many policies and regulations fail a cost-benefit analysis by the admittance of those who monitor them but there exists no way of removing them from the inside without a mechanism in place like 2 for 1.

What you just posted, when coupled with Trump's propensity to do anything as long as it counts as a "win", exemplifies why Trump and his administration are such a shit show.

Want to remove government waste? Great. Come up with policy changes to analyze and eliminate obsolete programs. You've got a unified Republican government; you can make it happen.

Instead, what Trump gives us is an ineffective showpiece policy (1 forward! 2 back!) that punishes well-run agencies trying to do even more because it is the regulatory equivalent of a chainsaw forcing them to make unnecessary cuts. It's no better than affirmative action, something conservatives highly disdain because of how it "punishes" the undeserving.

[Lenonis]

On the contrary, I do read some research from CAP and Niskanen and they promote many of the same cuts. That Heritage research relies solely on government sources from past fiscal years as the basis for its policy recommendations so you can always look at why they are suggesting what they are.

There is a reason I said put forward biased analysis instead of biased data.

Data is data. It doesn't have bias. But you can cherry pick data and do analysis with no realistic basis to get to a conclusion you want.

It's what the Trump administration is doing when they say that the tax cuts will pay for themselves in economic growth.

Now, to be fair, I haven't researched this particular topic from the Heritage foundation but my previous experience is they are not the most trustworthy when it comes from the path they use to get from start to conclusion.

[Zan15]

woops

U.S. economy bogs down in first quarter with slowest growth in 3 years, GDP shows

Small 0.7% GDP 1st Q growth


happy yet?

[Tico]

As a non-US resident, I am not too happy because of the anti-environmental actions and the increasing international tension.
However, I need to admint that it could have been much worse. There is some good news in the bad news.

[cubby]

And the crazy-train just keeps rolling.

Apparently during the Reuters interview, during a conversation about China, Trump stopped midway and handed out 2016 electoral maps.

I am just speechless. How much more ridiculous will this get before the GOP cuts it's losses?

[Molis]

Nothing in my life has changed in the first 100 days. So yes I am pretty happy. Thank you for asking.

[Glorious Leader]

2 for 1 is definitely unsophisticated but I don't know of a quicker way of removing bloat from different agencies which frequently fail auditing and accountability reports. Business owners don't need to be saints, the way they make is not necessarily harmful to anyone. The way federal agencies acquire money and power almost ensures that they are not held accountable without deregulations in place because they have no incentives to cut the funding they receive when programs have outlived their usefulness.

The issue is really just that many policies and regulations fail a cost-benefit analysis by the admittance of those who monitor them but there exists no way of removing them from the inside without a mechanism in place like 2 for 1.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't know who "they" are. If you aren't happy with the research in that report I suggest you start pointing fingers at the federal agencies that they source.

Thats rich. The government which is at least formally democratic is not accountable but the business owners who have zero accountability beyond how much profit can be extracted in the short term will somehow be more accountable. You cannot be this naive. WALL STREET DEREGULATION DIRECTLY LED TO THE GREAT RECESSION AND YOU WANT EVEN MORE OF THIS NONSENSE APPLIED TO AN EVEN BROADER BASE OF INDUSTRIES? Apparenttly you are both naieve and ignorant of history.

No i am not happy with the research because it is highlg misrepresentative of the data and that is primarily because heritage receives millions from the kochs. So yes of coursee they skew data in favor of whatever regulatory or deregulatory agenda that suites their masters.

[Kasierith]

You don't see how dumping toxic chemicals into local water supply sources has to do with local water supplies? Let alone the environment around said living areas?

Jesus christ the daftness of Deplorable Dump supporters astounds me...

The general sentiment that I have seen is that for many voters against regulation, as long as it isn't *their* water supply they really don't care about it.

[Zython]

I'm never happy.