Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Skroe]

Tumphadis, you're NEVER getting your fucking wall.



Oh one thing to add @Breccia, let's talk about the military construction segment of that briefly.

Since the early 20th century, when government grew in scope and complexity that it became impractical for Congress to pass detailed spending bills for every tiny change, Congress created the concept of "reprogramming" (and other phrases used before that). Basically a way of saying "you can move money from one coffer to another without asking us, so long as it does not exceed X dollars, and you have to tell us why in writing, and we'll have the opportunity to deny it if we disagree via vote." Pretty common sense stuff. Congress shouldn't need to hold a vote on a bill every time a few million dollars here or there needs to be moved around because of something unexpected.

The number used in reprogramming varies, but its low. Typically in the realm of the mid tens of millions of dollars, but cumulatelively, as the DoD under Trump lackey Pete Shanahan has done here, it can add up to several billion.

Objectively, that is not what programming was designed to do. Using reprogramming in this manner amounts to a giving the President the right to decide where money is spent, which is clearly unconstitutional. That's being fought out in the courts.

But before that, Shanahan/Trump's stunt here has had a direct consequence. It's effectively a one off, because the House Democrats have written into the NDAA for next year much tighter constraints on DoD reprogramming. Basically, it's essentially suspended. If the Pentagon needs more money for things, they have to get a vote. The sick thing is Shanahan did this KNOWING that would be the consequence.

So two things:

(1) That $3.6 billion in military construction is a one off. After this year's spending authorization expires (September 30th 2019, or whenever the inevitable Continuing Resolution expires), that's it. Reprogramming new funds (under a FY2020 budget) under the FY2019 authorization would be illegal and impossible. Trump never gets to do this stunt again.

(2) Reprogramming is pretty important to keeping contractors fed. Keep in mind, that the big wigs - Raytheon, Lockheed, United Technologies, General Dynamics, Boeing, BAE, Northrop - sit atop of a pyramid of a mountain of smaller contractors, many of which have work forces smaller than 100 and manufacture some obscure part or piece of equipment. Reprogramming is commonly used to keep them afloat between new spending authorizations, because unlike the big defense contractors, they don't have large piles of cash in a rainy day fund. Basically the military reprograms money from A to B to anticipate the next round of procurement and keep a company producing.

Well so much for that!

So this dumb stunt will, in the medium term, directly harm the actual defense requirements of the country.

All so the White Supremacists of America can get their fucking monument. Well at least conceptually, because it won't be built either.

[Shalcker]

Since the early 20th century, when government grew in scope and complexity that it became impractical for Congress to pass detailed spending bills for every tiny change, Congress created the concept of "reprogramming" (and other phrases used before that). Basically a way of saying "you can move money from one coffer to another without asking us, so long as it does not exceed X dollars, and you have to tell us why in writing, and we'll have the opportunity to deny it if we disagree via vote." Pretty common sense stuff. Congress shouldn't need to hold a vote on a bill every time a few million dollars here or there needs to be moved around because of something unexpected.

--- skip ---

But before that, Shanahan/Trump's stunt here has had a direct consequence. It's effectively a one off, because the House Democrats have written into the NDAA for next year much tighter constraints on DoD reprogramming. Basically, it's essentially suspended. If the Pentagon needs more money for things, they have to get a vote. The sick thing is Shanahan did this KNOWING that would be the consequence.

US getting mired up in more bureaucracy and Congress setting itself to fail because as you said yourself passing detailed spending bills is impractical - all "to own Trump"?

I guess US politics getting more dysfunctional is not a bug but a feature.

[Skroe]

US getting mired up in more bureaucracy and Congress setting itself to fail because as you said yourself passing detailed spending bills is impractical - all "to own Trump"?

I guess US politics getting more dysfunctional is not a bug but a feature.

This bureaucracy was literally in place before your grandparents were born and took your country to the cleaners. We're not "getting more" anything. Literally nothing is different. You just learned about this feature of the US government from my post and drew some random conclusion.

The DoD's been grounded for a bit. It's as simple as that. They'll get their more generous reprogramming authorization back in a couple of years when the wall issue goes away.

Oh and for the record, most countries have standing budgets / authorization and don't need things like this. The US budget cycle (annual appropriations AND authorization, independent of each other) is fairly unique in the world and requires things like that. But it's also more democratic / accountable as it requires all spending to go through a lot more hands, and with more frequency.

[Shalcker]

This bureaucracy was literally in place before your grandparents were born and took your country to the cleaners. We're not "getting more" anything. Literally nothing is different. You just learned about this feature of the US government from my post and drew some random conclusion.

Well, you know better, and you yourself say that it to be impractical.

Obviously i draw different conclusions from given data due to both different bias and different experiences.

The DoD's been grounded for a bit. It's as simple as that. They'll get their more generous reprogramming authorization back in a couple of years when the wall issue goes away.

So, you're saying for a few years DoD will be as good as useless? Good to hear it.

I'm sure that new loopholes used (or created) to actually get things done will be even worse then what we see now.

Oh and for the record, most countries have standing budgets / authorization and don't need things like this. The US budget cycle (annual appropriations AND authorization, independent of each other) is fairly unique in the world and requires things like that. But it's also more democratic / accountable as it requires all spending to go through a lot more hands, and with more frequency.

Right, that's why there were several trillions in "accounting adjustments", which led to audits starting from 2018, which, SURPRISE, failed (more on it here). Failed audit that itself was projected to cost almost 1 billion $.

Epitome of accountability. Totally /s

And Congress is totally going to be able to control all that on their own - if they just stop this particular discretionary spending. There are absolutely no alternative holes to be exploited by Trump! /s

[Skroe]

Well, you know better, and you yourself say that it to be impractical.

Obviously i draw different conclusions from given data due to both different bias and different experiences.

Okay, so you're telling me, it's practical for Congress to hold a vote every time some government agency - not even the DOD, just anybody - needs to move a few million dollars around. Out of a $4 trillion budget. Holding a vote on the actual square root of the budget. That's silly. If the government had to do that, they'd be doing nothing but holding votes over gravel, screws and gasoline, all the time.

So, you're saying for a few years DoD will be as good as useless? Good to hear it.

No. I'm saying for a for a few years, they won't have broad reprogramming powers. They'll still be able to do some of it, but not for things like this.

I'm sure that new loopholes used (or created) to actually get things done will be even worse then what we see now.

There aren't any loopholes. Reprogramming is not a loophole. It's Congress empowering the executive. The DoD reprogramming funds to build a small section of wall is perfectly legal under reprogramming. It's likely even consistent with the spirit of reprogramming as part of the FY2019 NDAA / Defense Budget, both of which were passed last year, before the House was taken by the Democrats. Which means that the DoD can rightly claim they are operating under the authorization granted to them by the Congress that funded the current budget, and the Congress in place now, disagreeing with that authorization, will have an opportunity to change that as part of the next budget.

This is the rules at work, in other words.

Right, that's why there were several trillions in "accounting adjustments", while led to audits starting from 2018, which, SURPRISE, failed (more on it here). Failed audit that itself took almost 1 billion $ to perform.

Epitome of accountability. Totally /s

Oh I'm well aware. But you honestly expect an organ of government that goes through $800 billion a year to not lose huge amounts of money? I'm not. And keep in mind, we're talking an audit, which refers to assets.

The military keeping track of exactly how much it has of something - the vast numbers of types things in its inventory - is going to be intrinsically complicated. And part of it has to do with definitions too, which is what follow ups to those stories dealt with. Does the DoD for example, count the USS Kitty Hawk as an asset? It's been moored in reserve for a decade. It could theoretically be reactivated in about a year or so. Its held just for that purpose. Is it likely to happen? No. Does it have value? Yes. So does it get counted? Or consider the Army's tank inventory. Does the US Army have 8000, 5000 or 2500 tanks? That's largely a matter of definition. There are 800 M1s of various versions around the world, about 3000 of which haven't been taken out of storage since the 1990s and without the latest upgrades to work with others, would be fairly useless. There is another 2500 of more modern ones in prepositioned stockpiles around the world. They're fairly up to date, but not exactly driven ever day. They're there to be used, though they'll need servicing. And then there's 2500 tanks that are all the most modern and taken care of, and they're the ones the US Army uses every week around the globe. So what's the right answer? 8000 which includes tanks not driven since the 1990s? 5000, which includes tanks that are there in case of emergency? Or 2500, which is just what the army regularly uses? DO the theoretically flyable B-52s in the Boneyard count? The Air Force has reactivated two in the last few years to replace B-52s lost in accidents. But most of those haven't flown since the 1990s also.

You start throwing in missiles, and aircraft and facilities, and the number goes way up.

Any way, you're Russian. America "losing" stuff it paid for in the DoD budget is mostly an accounting concern. As a Russian, well...











Losing military shit is pretty much what the Russian military is known for.

Those last few are Nuclear Radioisiotope Thermoelectric Generators, by the way. Maybe that's a sequel to Chernobyl. A miniseries about The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, where the American taxpayer paid billions of dollars to send a multinational, mostly Western team of experts to dismantle, dispose and clean up thousands of Soviet-Russian nuclear weapons-related assets (from ICBMs, to warheads to bombers to submarines) rather than let them sit out in the open and rust before who knows who decided to make off with them.

Now please tell me again how the Russian Federation isn't some successor remnant state sitting upon the ruin of a fallen empire. Tell me again how you people decided to "stop playing" at the Cold War again, like you were switching off your PS4 or something. I need a good laugh.

[Zaydin]

So apparently a new poll found 50% of respondents favored impeaching Trump in some form. 43% wanted him impeached and removed, 7% wanted him impeached but not removed, while 48% don't want him impeached at all.

The source of this poll? Fox News.

[akris15]

Okay, so you're telling me, it's practical for Congress to hold a vote every time some government agency - not even the DOD, just anybody - needs to move a few million dollars around. Out of a $4 trillion budget. Holding a vote on the actual square root of the budget. That's silly. If the government had to do that, they'd be doing nothing but holding votes over gravel, screws and gasoline, all the time.


No. I'm saying for a for a few years, they won't have broad reprogramming powers. They'll still be able to do some of it, but not for things like this.


There aren't any loopholes. Reprogramming is not a loophole. It's Congress empowering the executive. The DoD reprogramming funds to build a small section of wall is perfectly legal under reprogramming. It's likely even consistent with the spirit of reprogramming as part of the FY2019 NDAA / Defense Budget, both of which were passed last year, before the House was taken by the Democrats. Which means that the DoD can rightly claim they are operating under the authorization granted to them by the Congress that funded the current budget, and the Congress in place now, disagreeing with that authorization, will have an opportunity to change that as part of the next budget.

This is the rules at work, in other words.




Oh I'm well aware. But you honestly expect an organ of government that goes through $800 billion a year to not lose huge amounts of money? I'm not. And keep in mind, we're talking an audit, which refers to assets.

The military keeping track of exactly how much it has of something - the vast numbers of types things in its inventory - is going to be intrinsically complicated. And part of it has to do with definitions too, which is what follow ups to those stories dealt with. Does the DoD for example, count the USS Kitty Hawk as an asset? It's been moored in reserve for a decade. It could theoretically be reactivated in about a year or so. Its held just for that purpose. Is it likely to happen? No. Does it have value? Yes. So does it get counted? Or consider the Army's tank inventory. Does the US Army have 8000, 5000 or 2500 tanks? That's largely a matter of definition. There are 800 M1s of various versions around the world, about 3000 of which haven't been taken out of storage since the 1990s and without the latest upgrades to work with others, would be fairly useless. There is another 2500 of more modern ones in prepositioned stockpiles around the world. They're fairly up to date, but not exactly driven ever day. They're there to be used, though they'll need servicing. And then there's 2500 tanks that are all the most modern and taken care of, and they're the ones the US Army uses every week around the globe. So what's the right answer? 8000 which includes tanks not driven since the 1990s? 5000, which includes tanks that are there in case of emergency? Or 2500, which is just what the army regularly uses? DO the theoretically flyable B-52s in the Boneyard count? The Air Force has reactivated two in the last few years to replace B-52s lost in accidents. But most of those haven't flown since the 1990s also.

You start throwing in missiles, and aircraft and facilities, and the number goes way up.

Any way, you're Russian. America "losing" stuff it paid for in the DoD budget is mostly an accounting concern. As a Russian, well...











Losing military shit is pretty much what the Russian military is known for.

Those last few are Nuclear Radioisiotope Thermoelectric Generators, by the way. Maybe that's a sequel to Chernobyl. A miniseries about The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, where the American taxpayer paid billions of dollars to send a multinational, mostly Western team of experts to dismantle, dispose and clean up thousands of Soviet-Russian nuclear weapons-related assets (from ICBMs, to warheads to bombers to submarines) rather than let them sit out in the open and rust before who knows who decided to make off with them.

Now please tell me again how the Russian Federation isn't some successor remnant state sitting upon the ruin of a fallen empire. Tell me again how you people decided to "stop playing" at the Cold War again, like you were switching off your PS4 or something. I need a good laugh.

Sometimes I hate having to explain to people what my job is because there is always someone who says how worthless I am or how we apparently just sit around all day doing nothing when posts like these are made but I am an assertion auditor for the DoD. People do have the right to be upset with how the DoD was allowed to go so long with essentially a blank check w/ minimal oversight but just like an alcoholic who understand they have a problem at-least the DoD realizes it too does need to clean up its books. Yet Skroe, while I don't have to explain to someone like you with the ongoing asset issues along with the "Cat/Dog" issues with non-standardization of assets which the military is trying to address but this audit also covers things like process efficiency, IT controls, asset modernization and systems analysis.

I don't think people realize how large the DoD is and the major problem with accounting is every branch wanted to do their own thing with their own internal IT systems. Now add in all the assessable units like MOCAS (your major contracts), the PAYS (CIVPAY/MILPAY), your day to day expense systems (Vendor/Contract Pays), transferring asset between bases (MILSTRIPS-this is also where most of the bitching comes from because we can track down assets but officially we have to F.135 an asset if its not exactly where it states on the MILSTRIP Request form) and about 10 other smaller AUs with their own feeder system and you have a lot of bloat where transactions can go missing because how they filter through the accounting systems. Not only that some of the systems are so old that they cannot use a 9th integer, you still have some assets still in use but they don't exist on the computer because they were bought using the old general ledger books and how the DoD is still using antiquated technology to keep track of these assets using systems created in the 80s/90s. Naturally we are going to fail to begin with...its so large and it will take at-least a decade to get things in order, but we are trying.

Now if people really want to stop bitching about these accounting issues then those who are crying about this are also the ones who bash the workers who try to fix this stuff. For example our team of 12 for services audit is down to 3 people because how the State Department is basically defunct at this point it takes 12-18 months to get a new employee in, which means we don't get new employees. Not giving us full resources just make this impossible undertaking that much harder to fix. Just the other day I overheard disbursing employees complaining they now have to work a 10 hour workday because of the massive increase to the budget but lack of employees to "pay the bills" we are now 4-6 weeks behind on paying bills to where we are now accruing late fees. This isn't due to disbursing being "lazy" but because the Federal employees have been villianized so much we have such a high turnover (brain drain honestly) but no ability to get new employees because of how the State Department might as well not exist and how the Trump administration has basically ruined the Federal workforce service over the past 2 years.

[Cerilis]

Okay, so you're telling me, it's practical for Congress to hold a vote every time some government agency - not even the DOD, just anybody - needs to move a few million dollars around. Out of a $4 trillion budget. Holding a vote on the actual square root of the budget. That's silly. If the government had to do that, they'd be doing nothing but holding votes over gravel, screws and gasoline, all the time.


No. I'm saying for a for a few years, they won't have broad reprogramming powers. They'll still be able to do some of it, but not for things like this.


There aren't any loopholes. Reprogramming is not a loophole. It's Congress empowering the executive. The DoD reprogramming funds to build a small section of wall is perfectly legal under reprogramming. It's likely even consistent with the spirit of reprogramming as part of the FY2019 NDAA / Defense Budget, both of which were passed last year, before the House was taken by the Democrats. Which means that the DoD can rightly claim they are operating under the authorization granted to them by the Congress that funded the current budget, and the Congress in place now, disagreeing with that authorization, will have an opportunity to change that as part of the next budget.

This is the rules at work, in other words.




Oh I'm well aware. But you honestly expect an organ of government that goes through $800 billion a year to not lose huge amounts of money? I'm not. And keep in mind, we're talking an audit, which refers to assets.

The military keeping track of exactly how much it has of something - the vast numbers of types things in its inventory - is going to be intrinsically complicated. And part of it has to do with definitions too, which is what follow ups to those stories dealt with. Does the DoD for example, count the USS Kitty Hawk as an asset? It's been moored in reserve for a decade. It could theoretically be reactivated in about a year or so. Its held just for that purpose. Is it likely to happen? No. Does it have value? Yes. So does it get counted? Or consider the Army's tank inventory. Does the US Army have 8000, 5000 or 2500 tanks? That's largely a matter of definition. There are 800 M1s of various versions around the world, about 3000 of which haven't been taken out of storage since the 1990s and without the latest upgrades to work with others, would be fairly useless. There is another 2500 of more modern ones in prepositioned stockpiles around the world. They're fairly up to date, but not exactly driven ever day. They're there to be used, though they'll need servicing. And then there's 2500 tanks that are all the most modern and taken care of, and they're the ones the US Army uses every week around the globe. So what's the right answer? 8000 which includes tanks not driven since the 1990s? 5000, which includes tanks that are there in case of emergency? Or 2500, which is just what the army regularly uses? DO the theoretically flyable B-52s in the Boneyard count? The Air Force has reactivated two in the last few years to replace B-52s lost in accidents. But most of those haven't flown since the 1990s also.

You start throwing in missiles, and aircraft and facilities, and the number goes way up.

Any way, you're Russian. America "losing" stuff it paid for in the DoD budget is mostly an accounting concern. As a Russian, well...











Losing military shit is pretty much what the Russian military is known for.

Those last few are Nuclear Radioisiotope Thermoelectric Generators, by the way. Maybe that's a sequel to Chernobyl. A miniseries about The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, where the American taxpayer paid billions of dollars to send a multinational, mostly Western team of experts to dismantle, dispose and clean up thousands of Soviet-Russian nuclear weapons-related assets (from ICBMs, to warheads to bombers to submarines) rather than let them sit out in the open and rust before who knows who decided to make off with them.

Now please tell me again how the Russian Federation isn't some successor remnant state sitting upon the ruin of a fallen empire. Tell me again how you people decided to "stop playing" at the Cold War again, like you were switching off your PS4 or something. I need a good laugh.

Wow, in particular the first 3 look like real world-Fallout!

[Rasulis]

Now if people really want to stop bitching about these accounting issues then those who are crying about this are also the ones who bash the workers who try to fix this stuff. For example our team of 12 for services audit is down to 3 people because how the State Department is basically defunct at this point it takes 12-18 months to get a new employee in, which means we don't get new employees. Not giving us full resources just make this impossible undertaking that much harder to fix. Just the other day I overheard disbursing employees complaining they now have to work a 10 hour workday because of the massive increase to the budget but lack of employees to "pay the bills" we are now 4-6 weeks behind on paying bills to where we are now accruing late fees. This isn't due to disbursing being "lazy" but because the Federal employees have been villianized so much we have such a high turnover (brain drain honestly) but no ability to get new employees because of how the State Department might as well not exist and how the Trump administration has basically ruined the Federal workforce service over the past 2 years.

I am trying not to laugh too hard. Our firm only do public work, and we always get audited at least once a year. Sometimes twice. On the other hand, large companies like Turner only get audited once every 3 - 5 years.

So one day I asked the guy that was auditing us about the discrepancy in audit frequency. His response was that they can audit a small firm like us in one or two days with one person. Auditing a large company on the other hand is a lot of work. It requires 4 to 6 people and can take up to a month to do. So small firms like us get audited a lot.

[Edge-]

I am trying not to laugh too hard. Our firm only do public work, and we always get audited at least once a year. Sometimes twice. On the other hand, large companies like Turner only get audited once every 3 - 5 years.

So one day I asked the guy that was auditing us about the discrepancy in audit frequency. His response was that they can audit a small firm like us in one or two days with one person. Auditing a large company on the other hand is a lot of work. It requires 4 to 6 people and can take up to a month to do. So small firms like us get audited a lot.

Basically the same way the IRS handles personal audits. They don't go after rich folks due to the complexity, time, and legal battles that come along with auditing rich folks with tons of high powered lawyers on retainer.

They do go after poor folks though, because their under-trained staff can easily audit basic tax forms to spot minor mistakes and go after those folks.

Which is fucking dumb, because these smaller companies/poor folks are not the fucking ones engaging in major fraud, or potential fraud, that can meaningfully impact the economy.

[Trifle]

So one day I asked the guy that was auditing us about the discrepancy in audit frequency. His response was that they can audit a small firm like us in one or two days with one person. Auditing a large company on the other hand is a lot of work. It requires 4 to 6 people and can take up to a month to do. So small firms like us get audited a lot.

That's weird, because I swear our company is under audit for about 3 months out of the year, every year (multiple audits, but all are done annually).

[Flarelaine]

Wow, in particular the first 3 look like real world-Fallout!

Don't they, though.

I have managed to walk by some abandoned missile silos in a former Soviet facility. At night. In the dark. I got the scares in the morning when I realised what huge hole in the ground I have somehow managed to not walk into.

The stripped-out radar towers offered a great view over the hills, though.

[Shalcker]

Losing military shit is pretty much what the Russian military is known for.

So, i went to check what are those images of...

Delta-IV Submarine standing in dock? (none were decommissioned so far and each of them still active; that particular photo is of Yekaterinburg submarine with outer shell stripped after it caught fire during repairs; it was repaired successfully and returned to service in 2014)
Ukrainian tank holding facility?
Tank graveyard in Afghanistan?

And last three - RITEG elements without any nuclear fuel from autonomous lighthouses (last image from one decommisioned in 2006)?

What exactly does it prove about modern Russian forces?

[rda]

So, i went to check what are those images of...

Delta-IV Submarine standing in dock? (none were decommissioned so far and each of them still active)
Ukrainian tank holding facility?
Tank graveyard in Afghanistan?

And last three - RITEG elements without any nuclear fuel from autonomous lighthouses (last image from one decommisioned in 2006)?

What exactly does it prove about modern Russian forces?

This was hilarious. (Just checked the bolded bit, yup.) :-)

There is a lot to say about Russian military - and yes, things are kind of bad - but Skroe's message seems to be mostly uninformed hot air.

- - - Updated - - -

Returning back to Trump and the supposed shitshow. (Tweets? OK.)

https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/1...759872/photo/1

BREAKING: Trump says he just spoke with China's Xi by phone, "will be having an extended meeting next week at the G-20" with him.

...followed by +1.19% in Dow Industrials, for example.

[Cthulhu 2020]

...followed by +1.19% in Dow Industrials, for example.

After several -2% issues, I can see how selective story telling has really helped not just the Trump campaign, but like minded Russian political campaigns.

It's just like Trump: He doesn't want to hear the bad news, and fires anyone who tells it to him. Just feed people the good news, they don't really need to know that the house they're in is on fire if they're looking at the shiny new pony in the front yard.

[rda]

After several -2% issues, I can see how selective story telling has really helped not just the Trump campaign, but like minded Russian political campaigns.

It's just like Trump: He doesn't want to hear the bad news, and fires anyone who tells it to him. Just feed people the good news, they don't really need to know that the house they're in is on fire if they're looking at the shiny new pony in the front yard.

I mentioned +1.19% exactly because it was fashionable in this thread to be talking about every negative movement of the markets, even though all these fluctuations are merely short-term reactions.

We can talk about a bigger picture, if you want. It is not a bad one.

[Redwyrm]

I mentioned +1.19% exactly because it was fashionable in this thread to be talking about every negative movement of the markets, even though all these fluctuations are merely short-term reactions.

We can talk about a bigger picture, if you want. It is not a bad one.

Problem is, the market shouldn't be fluctuating this wildly. The reason it is fluctuating in these big up and down swings is because the market has no faith in Trump.

[rda]

Problem is, the market shouldn't be fluctuating this wildly. The reason it is fluctuating in these big up and down swings is because the market has no faith in Trump.

Markets always fluctuate a lot in the short term. I agree lack of certainty is not great, but I am not sure who's more responsible - Trump (who is pretty erratic, yes) or the media (who amplify it all tremendously).

[Redwyrm]

Markets always fluctuate a lot in the short term. I agree lack of certainty is not great, but I am not sure who's more responsible - Trump (who is pretty erratic, yes) or the media (who amplify it all tremendously).

The media doesn't set policy. And besides the market does not react to the media because the media is two steps behind the forces driving the market (job reports, sales numbers, interest rate hikes, crazy 4am tweets).

[Daelak]

Markets always fluctuate a lot in the short term. I agree lack of certainty is not great, but I am not sure who's more responsible - Trump (who is pretty erratic, yes) or the media (who amplify it all tremendously).

It's all Trump, and the explicit actions his cabinet members publicly make, as well as the endless stream of contradictory information between the WH and Trump's mouth.