Trump approval down to 33%, Republican Support is starting to crumble.

[Felya]

They are key jobs because the departments themselves have been complaining about being short staffed and overworked, that's not even mentioning that some of these jobs (like ambassador to South Korea) greatly weaken our diplomatic options. I am not saying all of these jobs are needed but this is not being done after an assessment of these department Trump is just leaving these jobs empty on purpose.

Them not passing is because of democrats being obstructionists!... two months later... We don't need these jobs anyway!...

It's kindergarten logic...

[Draco-Onis]

Them not passing is because of democrats being obstructionists!... two months later... We don't need these jobs anyway!...

It's kindergarten logic...

Well to be fair to them no one in their right mind would risk their career by having this administration on their resume.

[Felya]

This is not a big argument because the departments *always* complain about being understaffed. Their root incentives are skewed in that each department is interested in subsuming as many functions as possible, getting as many people as possible, and just eternally extending and expanding everywhere with little concern for the quality of the job it is doing. There are *zero* departments that would not complain about being understaffed and underfunded.

So, no, the departments preemptively saying that all of their jobs are very important is pretty much nothing. They always say that.

Trump said they were important two months ago, when he was tossing a fit blaming democrats for it. I also don't remember anything like this at least the last 30 years. Your attempt to normalize it, is contradicted by reality.

[rda]

Again zero analysis or reports on what those department needs, and are you going to argue that we don't need ambassadors now?

No, I am not going to argue that and I agree that there should be analysis and reports first. If Trump does not have anything there, that's bad and he shouldn't be cutting anything, I agree.

- - - Updated - - -

I also don't remember anything like this at least the last 30 years. Your attempt to normalize it, is contradicted by reality.

What, the departments constantly wanting more funding, more staff and - in the long run - more functions (frequently making up "needs" which supposedly have to be addressed and offering to play heroes and take it upon themselves to oversee / etc) so that they can get even more funding and even more staff???

This has been going on forever. This *is* the game there. The more funds you have and the more staff you employ, the more powerful you are. That's the main driving force. Everything else, including actually performing assigned functions, is ten times less important. Blame the incentives.

[Felya]

Well to be fair to them no one in their right mind would risk their career by having this administration on their resume.

That's not fair... just because Trump ran out of sycophants to nominate, doesn't mean there is no one willing to do those jobs. Unlike any other president, Trump just has along vacation schedule and has Trump corporation to represent, while representing the US. Did Bush, Clinton or Obama refuse to put their business in a blind trust? Did any president take as much time off as this one?

The problem is that we have a president whose motto might as well be... the buck stops elsewhere...

[Daelak]

This is not a big argument because the departments *always* complain about being understaffed. Their root incentives are skewed in that each department is interested in subsuming as many functions as possible, getting as many people as possible, and just eternally extending and expanding everywhere with little concern for the quality of the job it is doing. There are *zero* departments that would not complain about being understaffed and underfunded.

So, no, the departments preemptively saying that all of their jobs are very important is pretty much nothing. They always say that.

Two words away from "small government" schtick. New OT commenter, same BS we expect from the conservative braintrust. Atleast your post above showed some restraint. This is like complaining about the Society of Engineers annual report card of infrastructure because they stand to make money by engineering new infrastructure.

[Draco-Onis]

That's not fair... just because Trump ran out of sycophants to nominate, doesn't mean there is no one willing to do those jobs. Unlike any other president, Trump just has along vacation schedule and has Trump corporation to represent, while representing the US. Did Bush, Clinton or Obama refuse to put their business in a blind trust? Did any president take as much time off as this one?

The problem is that we have a president whose motto might as well be... the buck stops elsewhere...

True, the Trump administration publicly throwing people under the bus is not exactly inspiring anyone to volunteer for positions.

[Felya]

What, the departments constantly wanting more funding, more staff and - in the long run - more functions (frequently making up "needs" which supposedly have to be addressed unless they play heroes and take it upon themselves to oversee / etc) so that they can get even more funding and even more staff???

You are arguing that staffing requires presidential approval, which just shows you have no clue what you are talking about. This is ambassadors and department heads that require presidential appointment and congressional approval. Do you honestly think this president's appointment is required for expanding departments? You think Trump is an HR manager?

This has been going on forever. This *is* the game there. The more funds you have and the more staff you employ, the more powerful you are. That's the main driving force, everything else, including actually performing functions, is ten times less important. Blame the incentives.

Now explain to me, why you think the president would need to appoint individual employees in this expansion you are talking about? If it's common, feel free to link a single, of what should be many, of the same happening to other presidents.

[Felya]

Two words away from "small government" schtick. New OT commenter, same BS we expect from the conservative braintrust. Atleast your post above showed some restraint. This is like complaining about the Society of Engineers annual report card of infrastructure because they stand to make money by engineering new infrastructure.

Trump does not nominate people who would be an expansion of staff. He is talking about the president, as if he is an HR manager.

[rda]

Two words away from "small government" schtick. New OT commenter, same BS we expect from the conservative braintrust. Atleast your post above showed some restraint. This is like complaining about the Society of Engineers annual report card of infrastructure because they stand to make money by engineering new infrastructure.

And you obviously are a regular. Your post contains zero material worth discussing, and all your "political" interests amount to trying to sort people into two camps - yours and the enemies. The enemies are obviously brainless and evil. /sarcasm

Take a step back and realize that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

- - - Updated - - -

You are arguing that staffing requires presidential approval, which just shows you have no clue what you are talking about.

I am not arguing that. I am arguing that some of the positions may indeed be unneeded. Whether or not they are unneeded I don't know, need external analysis.

[Felya]

I am not arguing that. I am arguing that some of the positions may indeed be unneeded. Whether or not they are unneeded I don't know, need external analysis.

What changed in two months, that made these a problem caused by DNC, not part of the solution... to now being an undefined lack of necessity?

Edit: do you want me to link you arguing that it's due to expanding departments? Because you absolutely made that argument...

[Daelak]

And you obviously are a regular. Your post contains zero material worth discussing, and all your "political" interests amount to trying to sort people into two camps - yours and the enemies. The enemies are obviously brainless and evil. /sarcasm

Take a step back and realize that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Not really, it is just easy to see the people who seem to think that they know about the inner workings of a governmental agency/division, like Tillerson, Mulvayney, Perry, Carson, DeVos, Gottlieb, ad nauseum are all objectively unfit for the agencies they now commandeer. No partisanship, no appeals towards "evil" or stupid, just straight up unfit for a position that if it were in the private sector would be laughed out of the interview room. Yet here you are, once again, carrying water for them, and even agreeing with them on these requested and desired cuts to their departments.

[Felya]

Take a step back and realize that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Please explain how increased staffing of departments, is hindering Trump's ability to nominate ambassadors, because some of the expansion is not needed.

[rda]

What changed in two months, that made these a problem caused by DNC, not part of the solution... to now being an undefined lack of necessity?

Edit: do you want me to link you arguing that it's due to expanding departments? Because you absolutely made that argument...

Ask Trump what changed. I don't know what changed. Maybe he is full of it here, too.

All I said is that I would not be surprised if many of the unnamed jobs actually were unneeded.

Link whatever you want but please note that you misread and misinterpreted what I wrote twice already. So I suggest you re-read what it is I am saying before replying again because right now it seems that you are like the other regular who is only interested in deciding whether a particular poster is in "his" camp or in "the other" camp and then blindly throwing shit if it is the latter.

- - - Updated - - -

Please explain how increased staffing of departments, is hindering Trump's ability to nominate ambassadors, because some of the expansion is not needed.

You just couldn't wait for my reply, could you.

Irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really, it is just easy to see the people who seem to think that they know about the inner workings of a governmental agency/division, like Tillerson, Mulvayney, Perry, Carson, DeVos, Gottlieb, ad nauseum are all objectively unfit for the agencies they now commandeer. No partisanship, no appeals towards "evil" or stupid, just straight up unfit for a position that if it were in the private sector would be laughed out of the interview room. Yet here you are, once again, carrying water for them, and even agreeing with them on these requested and desired cuts to their departments.

Bla bla bla bla bla and nothing on any specific topic and everything on painting me with a super-wide brush that must make me look bad in your own eyes and the eyes of others like yourself.

Next post like that I won't even reply to, so save the electrons.

Again, you are part of the problem. What you are doing is not talking politics.

[Felya]

Not really, it is just easy to see the people who seem to think that they know about the inner workings of a governmental agency/division, like Tillerson, Mulvayney, Perry, Carson, DeVos, Gottlieb, ad nauseum are all objectively unfit for the agencies they now commandeer. No partisanship, no appeals towards "evil" or stupid, just straight up unfit for a position that if it were in the private sector would be laughed out of the interview room. Yet here you are, once again, carrying water for them, and even agreeing with them on these requested and desired cuts to their departments.

Linda McMahon is one of my favorites. Lost her only attempt at running for government. Never even held a job at a small business. But, is appointed as the small business administrator. I guess being the largest donor to Trump Foundation not named Trump, has its perks. Or appointing the owner of NY Jets to be an ambassador to England. At least we know who his favorite NFL team is and why he is so desperate for a win... J E T S, J E T S, suck, suck, suck...

[Daelak]

Linda McMahon is one of my favorites. Lost her only attempt at running for government. Never even held a job at a small business. But, is appointed as the small business administrator. I guess being the largest donor to Trump Foundation not named Trump, has its perks. Or appointing the owner of NY Jets to be an ambassador to England. At least we know who his favorite NFL team is and why he is so desperate for a win... J E T S, J E T S, suck, suck, suck...

But according to @rda we should give her and Trump the benefit of the doubt because he has this "feeling" that they always want more funding and more resources, it can never have anything to do with, you know, the actual conditions and scope of the job that they are doing.

- - - Updated - - -

Bla bla bla bla bla and nothing on any specific topic and everything on painting me with a super-wide brush that must make me look bad in your own eyes and the eyes of others like yourself.

Next post like that I won't even reply to, so save the electrons.

Again, you are part of the problem. What you are doing is not talking politics.

You don't look bad to me in my eyes, just deluded. Trying to carry water for any of Trump's appointed department heads as competent is impossible, which is probably why the turnover in his own WH Administration is so high.

[Felya]

Ask Trump what changed. I don't know what changed. Maybe he is full of it here, too.

So... you both... think he is full of it and that there must be someway to justify it. How does that make sense?

All I said is that I would not be surprised if many of the unnamed jobs actually were unneeded.

That is not all you said, bud. Even in this case, your silly notion is that Trump has to be right for doing it, even though you have no clue which jobs these are. Maybe he is just full of it and you are having troubles defending him because of it.

Link whatever you want but please note that you misread and misinterpreted what I wrote twice already. So I suggest you re-read what it is I am saying before replying again because right now it seems that you are like the other regular who is only interested in deciding whether a particular poster is in "his" camp or in "the other" camp and then blindly throwing shit if it is the latter.

What did I misread? You want to link me misreading something or are you lying to defend Trump now? You show me where I misread, because this is the first I see you saying it.

You just couldn't wait for my reply, could you.

Irrelevant.

You just spent several posts saying it's due to staff expansion. Wtf? How is that my fault? Don't defend a guy even you say might be full of it here... too...

[rda]

Even in this case, your silly notion is that Trump has to be right for doing it, even though you have no clue which jobs these are.

I never said that.

You distorted what I said a third time on less than two pages. I don't see any reason to talk with you about anything, you just keep inventing things and replying to stuff you invented. I get that you are doing this because you are enjoying creating such twisted nonsense "discussions". If you want, I can copy / paste you some text from, I don't know, Wikipedia, which you could then reply to thoroughly twisting / replacing / reworking to your heart's content, yet pretend that you are replying to (and "debunking" or otherwise triumphing over) me. Something from medieval history maybe? Shipbuilding? Let me know.

[Breccia]

Why are you referring to these jobs as key?

I would describe any job so important as to require Senate confirmation, as key.

- - - Updated - - -

Linda McMahon is one of my favorites.

It's clearly Bel Biv DeVos, who I assume is bear hunting to hide from teachers.

J E T S, J E T S, suck, suck, suck...

They beat my Eagles, so, yeah.

- - - Updated - - -

While this article from the Tax Policy Center is an OP ED, the facts cited by the expert author are still true.

President Trump says major tax reform is the lynchpin of his ambitious economic growth agenda. So why is he making it so hard for Congress to pass it?

The president’s speech in Springfield, Mo., this week was a textbook case of how not to promote tax reform. In contrast to the approach taken by President Reagan in the mid-1980s, he provided no specific framework for change. He made no serious case for why one version of reform is better than any other.

He said nothing about the hard work of paying for a tax bill, nor did he distinguish between tax reform and tax cuts. He made promises he is unlikely to keep, such as long-term economic growth in excess of 3 percent. He threatened congressional Republicans. And he went out of his way to antagonize the very kind of Senate Democrat who might otherwise be persuaded to back a reform initiative.


Where Republican lawmakers need political cover, Trump left them exposed. Where they need direction, he left them without GPS, or even an old-fashioned map. Where they need a grand vision, he gave them partisan political rhetoric. Republican leaders have been pushing the president for months to use his bully pulpit to promote tax reform. But after Springfield, they may want to revise that strategy.

Think about what the president said, and did not say, in Springfield. Most important, the president proposed no specific tax plan and suggested he never will. Even though Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin now says the White House has a “very detailed” plan, we’ve seen no evidence of one. Instead, Trump apparently will leave all the heavy lifting to Congress. Especially the part about closing “special interest loopholes.”

The president said nothing about how he’d pay for the tax cuts he’s been talking about since the campaign. And Congress cannot come close to paying for them by closing “special interest loopholes.” Not close. Not within trillions of dollars. To cut tax rates significantly for business and individuals without adding to the debt, lawmakers would have to slash popular, widely used tax breaks that benefit businesses and middle- and upper-income taxpayers.

They include deductions for mortgage interest, charitable giving, and state and local taxes, exclusions for retirement savings and employer-sponsored health insurance and business deductions for interest costs. Without those revenue raisers (or offsetting spending cuts), a tax bill would either add trillions of dollars to the national debt or end up cutting rates far more modestly than the president seems to want.

But Republicans can’t roll back those popular tax breaks on their own. Without Democrats, whose support most GOP leaders have so far rejected out-of-hand, they desperately need political cover from the president. And, so far at least, he has not provided it. Indeed, he has not even said whether he wants revenue-neutral tax reform or a simple budget-busting tax cut.

Until Congress decides how much a new tax code should raise, debating other details is a waste of time. If Trump’s passive-aggressive legislative strategy seems familiar, it is because it mimics the way he handled the GOP’s misbegotten effort to replace the Affordable Care Act.

While he frequently promised his own plan, he never produced one. Instead, he first backed the House-passed bill, then called it mean, then left it to the Senate to pass a new bill, the blasted the upper chamber for failing to do so. The tax debate seems to be setting up the same way. The president will not offer a detailed plan but rather leave it to Congress to work something out. If it does, he will claim victory and take credit. If it does not, he will lay the blame at the foot of Capitol Hill.

Trump set the stage for this gambit in Springfield, where he punctuated his speech with a not-so-veiled threat against lawmakers: “I don’t want to be disappointed by Congress,” he said. “Do you understand me?” This Godfather-like warning may play to Trump’s most fervent anti-establishment supporters, but it won’t help him get a tax bill passed.

Bolded for emphasis. The last Trump tax plan we saw would literally cut trillions of revenue over ten years, and his budget is based on cuts to offset the military spending increase -- not the lower taxes.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey remember earlier when I said Trump was cutting raises for federal employees, not paying people what he was contractually obligated?

Spoke too soon. He's just going to fire them.

Public servants brace for impact as Trump looks for budget cuts

As Congress returns from its August recess, its to-do list is well-known: raise the debt ceiling, pass a budget, fund the government and enact tax reform.

Exactly how it plans to achieve those goals — at what cost, to whom — is more uncertain. But in each case, our nation’s public servants find themselves in the line of fire.

Federal employees are hard-working, middle-class Americans who live and work in every congressional district. Eighty-five percent work outside the Washington, D.C., area. Two-thirds work to defend our homeland, support our military, or care for our veterans. Nearly one-third of federal employees are veterans themselves.

Yet, federal employees face threats that have become too familiar — a potential government shutdown, an austerity budget that threatens jobs and pay cuts through increased retirement contributions. As if that wasn’t enough, new proposals have emerged this year that take aim at earned retirement benefits promised in exchange for years of public service. Federal retirees’ quality of life is threatened simply because they served our nation.
As Congress debates how to achieve its goals, any of these options remain on the table. No deal has been reached on raising sequestration caps to prevent drastic cuts to agency budgets for the upcoming fiscal year or raising the debt ceiling. It is unclear what spending offsets will be agreed upon and if federal compensation cuts will be included. Facing a double-edged sword, federal employees must hope for a deal that keeps them at work without gouging their earned pay and benefits.

Meanwhile, the House Budget Committee passed a fiscal year 2018 budget resolution that would tie the fate of tax reform to $32 billion in cuts from federal retirement and/or health benefit programs. Even if a deal is reached on government funding, federal workers will not yet be out of danger.

Trump has also proposed forcing federal employees to pay extra out of their paycheck for retirement benefits, but not to receive any more retirement benefits.

And he's reducing/eliminating cost of living adjustments for recent, and current, federal retirees.

- - - Updated - - -

Kelly needs to take the remote control from his tiny hands next.

Trump complained he’s reading fewer articles from right-wing sites: report

White House chief of staff John Kelly has severely cut down on the number of news articles President Trump receives from conservative-leaning and right-wing news organizations, according to a new report.

The New York Times reported Friday that Kelly has restricted what information ends up in Trump’s daily digest of articles. Because Trump does not have an Internet browser on his phone and doesn’t use a computer, he relies on hard copies of news articles.

But after a few weeks of Kelly in the chief of staff role, Trump reportedly complained to a friend about the lack of articles from right-wing websites like Breitbart and The Daily Caller, according to The Times.
Kelly, however, hasn’t been able to stop Trump from continuously watching Fox News. White House aides told The Times that Fox News is Trump’s main source of information.

Soon after Kelly took the chief of staff job, reports indicated that he was vetting everything Trump sees before it gets to him, as well as restricting visits with Trump in the Oval Office.

But Trump has reportedly been growing frustrated with Kelly for implementing those tighter restrictions.

"He’s having a very hard time,” a friend of Trump’s told The Washington Post. “He doesn’t like the way the media’s handling him. He doesn’t like how Kelly’s handling him. He’s turning on people that are very close to him.”

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm. The stories about the early draft Mueller has, which relates directly to obstruction of justice, are getting thicker. The New York Times and the Washington Post have reported:

1) The authors of the early draft were Kushner and Miller, who had been with Trump during his golfing weekend that had just ended. It was during that weekend that those two agreed with Trump's thoughts on firing Comey.

2) Trump made the announcement he was going to fire Comey, added his own "angry, meandering" additions to the early draft, then read the modified draft to a packed room including Pence, Preibus, Hicks and McCahn. It did not include Sessions nor Rosenstein, who would visit the White House later that day.

3) WH counsel McCahn was alarmed by the tone of the draft and worked with others, most notably Rosenstein, to replace it.

So what does this mean?

1) Trump's motive for firing Comey is motive to obstruction of justice charges. Should Trump's motive lead to obstruction, the above people could also face repercussions, the least of which is toxic PR (for allowing Trump to blatantly fire Comey for criminal reasons) and the greatest of which is also obstruction of justice charges.

2) It is also evidence that Trump's reasons to fire Comey pre-date the letters from Sessions and Rosenstein, which in turn, means those are not the real reason Comey was fired.

3) It also means that anyone in that meeting, who was backing Trump's tale of following Sessions' and Rosenstein's recommendations -- again, barring time travel, that reason is false -- is lying.

The investigation is ongoing.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump threatens to withdraw from a South Korea trade deail, mid-NK missile crisis, against the views of his staff including McMaster, Mattis, and Cohn.

[Mafic]

Sitting around discussing polls that ultimately never mean shit. This must be the pastime of those on the outside looking in. Try winning an election, it might make you feel better.

This is true that polls are close to accurate within days of an election cycle.