• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The US Presidency 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.
PPCLI Guy said:
Not if there is record levels of borrowing they don't.

Have to be careful with words. Obama holds the record for US Federal budget deficits (Deficit as a percent of GDP). https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-budget

Trump is currently at Bush (GW and HW) levels, with only Clinton having positive numbers in the last 40 years and it took him until his second term to sort that out.
 
A reminder: presidents submit budget requests, which are basically wish lists.  Congress appropriates.  The credit or blame for budget management rests entirely with Congress.

Non-discretionary (mandatory, entitlement) spending is built-in.  The party that doesn't want to see non-discretionary spending increased or decreased simply has to block the other party from changing the legislation governing non-discretionary spending programs (eg. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security).

Appropriations are for discretionary spending.  If Congress can't agree on specific appropriation amounts, continuing resolutions are used.  CRs basically take the previous year's spending ("baseline") and multiply by some number greater than one.  Obama's movement of the Iraq war spending from "off-budget" to "on-budget" ensured that although the spending on war would eventually go away, the expenditure amount is now part of the "baseline" and prevents the spending from actually being turned off (an accounting trick to make the money available for other spending).

Non-discretionary spending has been increasing as a share of spending, while discretionary spending has been falling (as a share).  If you include interest payments as "mandatory", then mandatory spending is somewhere between 2/3 and 7/10 of total spending.  The rate of mandatory spending growth exceeds the rate of economic growth; it is generally regarded as being on an unsustainable trajectory.

Discretionary spending is about $1.2T (of which defense and related spending is about $0.9T), and the deficit is about $0.9T.
 
PuckChaser said:
Have to be careful with words. Obama holds the record for US Federal budget deficits (Deficit as a percent of GDP). https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-budget

Trump is currently at Bush (GW and HW) levels, with only Clinton having positive numbers in the last 40 years and it took him until his second term to sort that out.

I could point out the fact that was due to the Recession, which caused our own government to also move into a deficit, but the point is ultimately irrelevant.

I literally could not care less which brand of foreign (or domestic) politician made what decision.  I do not repeat do not see everything through the simplistic right versus left lens.

Bad decisions are bad decisions.  Being Republican does not make them badder, not does being a Democrat make them gooder.

There is more to critical thinking than labels.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
I could point out the fact that was due to the Recession, which caused our own government to also move into a deficit, but the point is ultimately irrelevant.

I literally could not care less which brand of foreign (or domestic) politician made what decision.  I do not repeat do not see everything through the simplistic right versus left lens.

Bad decisions are bad decisions.  Being Republican does not make them badder, not does being a Democrat make them gooder.

There is more to critical thinking than labels.

Considering you tried making a point about Trump running historically high deficits but in reality its not true, you're either viewing things through a partisan lens or simply just not educated on the actual numbers. Either way, I don't really care as your statement was incorrect so any other justification of those incorrect facts is just trying to save face.
 
PuckChaser said:
Considering you tried making a point about Trump running historically high deficits but in reality its not true, you're either viewing things through a partisan lens or simply just not educated on the actual numbers. Either way, I don't really care as your statement was incorrect so any other justification of those incorrect facts is just trying to save face.

I did not try to make a point.  I quoted facts from reliable sources.

Perhaps it is just that I understand the difference between % of GDP and totals.

I literally don't know how else to explain to you what a non-partisan looks like.  Facts are facts.  It turns out that truth really is truth.

You crack on from your righteous and right perch.  I will continue to think critically.  Feel free to put me on your ignore list - which would probably be a bit awkward for a Mod.

Have a nice evening.
 
Lumber said:
Ah. So, basically we need a big war and famine to reduce the surplus labour, possibly even a decrease that is greater that what is needed, thereby providing the survivors with a significant opportunity to find their natural fit and establish a new steady state.
Or perhaps less catastrophically we could implement disincentives to repetitively exploiting untapped and thus cheaper labour markets? Free market fundamentalists love to tout the way development reduces suffering in emerging markets, but they seem to be blind to the suffering it causes in mature markets: "Bootstraps" seems to be the only medicine offered.

Capital is both increasingly free to move anywhere and buy almost anything, speculatively or otherwise.  Labour is both increasingly restricted in movement and intrinsically incapable of quickly retraining to supply whatever capital is currently in the market for, speculatively or otherwise. Limiting the speed and movement of capital to something approaching proportional and equal to the biology that it depends on doesn't strike me as particularly radical.

I don't know how that fits into Mr. Turchin's analysis; whether that is an "internal" or "external" cause to his impending crisis, but I can say with reasonable certainty that Trump and his advisors have no interest in any aspect of it aside from riling up his base about illegal immigration.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
I did not try to make a point.  I quoted facts from reliable sources.

Perhaps it is just that I understand the difference between % of GDP and totals.

I literally don't know how else to explain to you what a non-partisan looks like.  Facts are facts.  It turns out that truth really is truth.

You crack on from your righteous and right perch.  I will continue to think critically.  Feel free to put me on your ignore list - which would probably be a bit awkward for a Mod.

Have a nice evening.

Why not just post your reliable sources and end the debate?  :dunno:
 
PPCLI Guy said:
You crack on from your righteous and right perch.  I will continue to think critically.  Feel free to put me on your ignore list - which would probably be a bit awkward for a Mod.

I don't think the swipe about moderators putting users to ignore is fair, or justified in this case.

If a moderator, as a user (because they are all users first and foremost), takes that step then they're fully within their rights and it's not awkward. It is actually encouraged and not something done lightly, or without them letting me know. There are multiple moderators in case one's needed as a fire brigade.

Just wanted to clear that one up.

Cheers

Scott
 
Brad Sallows said:
You're not convincingly addressing the crux of the matter.
Insisting on a far higher standard of decorum, professionalism and accountability in a private citizen over the POTUS is the crux.
Brennan is free to pitch a fit if the administration is not doing everything Brennan thinks it should, but that's not particularly "professional".  Not following Brennan's preferred script is not the same as doing nothing at all.
That a purported national security threat, replete with indictments against 12 Russian intelligence officers for hacking, can be disparagingly construed as a mere script preferred by Brennan is also a big part of the crux.
(I suppose most people on this forum have, several times, offered advice and a considered course of action and had it rejected in favour of something else.  I doubt many of them whined openly.)
No offense, but elevating the advice and courses of action offered by members of this board to the same level of importance and consequence as designating a world leader as an enemy of the nation - with the full backing of the entire American law enforcement and intelligence community to boot - is a wee bit of a stretch.
Trump is free to pitch poses for the cameras which show him back-slapping and glad-handing Putin, even while agencies of his administration pursue policies and actions against Russian interests.
You don't have to convince me that Trump is completely and totally full of it. The question and the crux (at least for me) is why does it not matter?
Brennan just looks like one of the guys PO'ed that Hillary lost, and determined to use his influence to join the ankle-biters determined to introduce friction.
So much skepticism, doubt and questioning of motives for a private citizen, and none for the words and actions of the POTUS is yet another crux of the matter.
Perhaps Trump is just trying to hold the relationship together until he has more flexibility after his re-election.
With GOP control of the house of reps possibly about to end Trump has already had the maximum "flexibility" he could ever hope to get. The only explanation for Trump's streadfast "trying to hold the relationship together" with Putin is that he simply wants the relationship with Putin.
 
>Insisting on a far higher standard of decorum, professionalism and accountability in a private citizen over the POTUS is the crux.

Then we're talking about two different things.  I've been talking about Brennan's standard of decorum and professionalism, which I find wanting.

People can insist on whatever standards of behaviour they wish Trump to achieve with respect to decorum and professionalism, but it's a waste of time; Trump's character was well established long before he ran for president.  The accountability aspect is being looked after by a small army of people who have been at it for over two years.

Once upon a time the USSR occupied much of Europe, was an open state sponsor of terrorism, worked incessantly to infiltrate the US government and many others, and was generally a busybody interfering everywhere it wished to destabilize governments and societies.  Its opponents worked, mostly without pitching fits, to oppose it.  The Obama administration fell asleep at the wheel ("And the 1980’s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back") and took the threat too lightly and throttled back its responses.  "Russian interference" only became a cause celebre with the loss of the presidency.  I agree with the commentators who conclude that "Russian interference" is just a way of directing attention away from incompetence and an excuse to find some pretext to impeach Trump.

The point about advice is that a "professional" doesn't go off whining when his advice isn't taken.

>You don't have to convince me that Trump is completely and totally full of crap. The question and the crux (at least for me) is why does it not matter?

Good, because there's no a priori reason to take Trump's comments about this matter any more seriously than his comments about the hundreds of other things he lies about and reverses direction upon.  His behaviour matters, but at this point effective people have learned to work around it instead of repeatedly butting their heads against it insisting it must change.  Trump's motives are to serve Trump - no particular importance should be attached to anything he says except to understand that it is whatever he thinks make him look good at that moment.  If circumstances change, then later he will baldly reverse himself if it serves his needs.

Whatever Trump said on the platform with Putin was what Trump thought would best serve himself at the time.  Pretending it is a statement of policy that means nothing is being done against Russian interference is unwarranted - there's no authority competent to assert which of Trump's statements reflect administration policy and which are humbug.

Meanwhile, "The Resistance" continues, as does the dissatisfaction on the part of all the people noting the double standards being applied to Republicans versus Democrats.  Rule of law isn't under threat because Trump rages against investigators or judges; rule of law is under threat because of inconsistent application of standards.
 
Scott said:
I don't think the swipe about moderators putting users to ignore is fair, or justified in this case.

If a moderator, as a user (because they are all users first and foremost), takes that step then they're fully within their rights and it's not awkward. It is actually encouraged and not something done lightly, or without them letting me know. There are multiple moderators in case one's needed as a fire brigade.

Just wanted to clear that one up.

Cheers

Scott

Fair enough - I was ennervated at the time.  I recant that element of my post. 

With respect,

PPCLI Guy
 
Trump slams Google search as 'rigged' — but it's not
by Hadas Gold  @CNNTech

President Donald Trump has renewed his claims of bias against conservatives on the internet, accusing Google of rigging its results to show "bad" stories when users search for "Trump news."
"Google search results for 'Trump News' shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media," the president said Tuesday on Twitter.

"In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out," he added. "Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives."

Trump suggested that Google's actions could be "illegal" and he said that the situation would be addressed. He did not specify what actions he would take, or say what laws may have been violated. . . .

See rest of article here:

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/28/technology/donald-trump-google-rigged/index.html

:rofl:
 
I'm sure @CNNTech has the purest intentions.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/blockbuster-cnn-trump-russia-story-in-more-doubt.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/attorney-for-michael-cohen-backs-away-from-confidence-that-cohen-has-information-about-trumps-knowledge-on-russian-efforts/2018/08/26/09d7f26e-a876-11e8-97ce-cc9042272f07_story.html

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/403718-lanny-davis-tempers-confidence-that-michael-cohen-has-info-on-trumps

 
Google responded by saying

""Every year, we issue hundreds of improvements to our algorithms to ensure they surface high-quality content in response to users’ queries. We continually work to improve Google Search and we never rank search results to manipulate political sentiment"[/quote]

High-quality content seems rather ambiguous.

You're right Google isn't without its unethical accusations, like that guy who was fired for talking about their bullshit diversity claims.
Google, like Twitter Instagram and all those other social media sites are left wing or at least very left leaning.

It's not really hard to guess what their inturputation of high quality content is.
 
Jarnhamar said:
Google, like Twitter Instagram and all those other social media sites are left wing or at least very left leaning.

It's not really hard to guess what their inturputation of high quality content is.

Like our mostly publicly funded Canadian media....



Most Canadian Media Guilty of Left-Leaning Bias, Says Author

Conservative viewpoint on issues such as abortion, global warming usually absent, Gerry Bowler says

The majority of Canadian news outlets have a left-leaning bias and do not include enough variety or conservative voices, according to a Canadian author and historian.

Gerry Bowler, who taught history at the University of Manitoba for 25 years, is a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a think tank that lobbies for smaller government.

Bowler recently zeroed in on news coverage in North America, suggesting it has gotten so biased toward supporting a progressive or leftist agenda that certain issues such as gay marriage, global warming, abortion, and gun control typically do not contain a conservative viewpoint.

“There’s a lot of Canadian life that is invisible to the media and there is a lot that is highlighted that just happens to fit the progressive agenda,” he said.

“And that narrowing of the window of public opinion is very dangerous, whether the drift is to the right or to the left, as it is in North America in the 21st century.”

Bowler said people who possess left-wing values tend to gravitate to the media as a profession—from reporters to editors to managers—and they have a tendency to give a progressive perspective while rushing from one story to the next, leaving out a diverse mix of opinions and analysis.

“The media figures would never admit out loud to being biased. As far as they are concerned they are straight-down-the-middle objective reporters of reality,” he said.

Bowler points to a recent Gallup poll in the United States that finds 62 percent of Democrats say they trust the media whereas only 14 percent of Republicans found the media to be objective.

He argues the situation is much the same in Canada, where conservatives feel alienated due to the kind of news coverage that gives more airtime to progressive voices favouring political correctness while stigmatizing religious or conservative views.

“Just look at the coverage in Canada of the American election as the results came in,” he said. “The CBC was absolutely disgraceful with its coverage—they were openly weeping at the results and there was no intent at objectivity at all,” said Bowler, adding that the only conservative voice on a panel dissecting the election results was David Frum, a known critic of President Donald Trump.

Conservatives are known to target the CBC because it’s a large, publicly funded institution, and Bowler and the Frontier Centre have often also focused on the state broadcaster. The CBC is not fulfilling its prime duty to reflect all Canadians and rather has become more of “a cheerleader for the left,” Bowler said.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/most-canadian-media-guilty-of-left-leaning-bias-says-author_2347119.html
 
daftandbarmy said:
Like our mostly publicly funded Canadian media....



Most Canadian Media Guilty of Left-Leaning Bias, Says Author

Conservative viewpoint on issues such as abortion, global warming usually absent, Gerry Bowler says

The majority of Canadian news outlets voters have a left-leaning bias

As such, it is not surprising that the media, who have to sell their product, cater to the majority.

Not a conspiracy.  Just business.
 
The adults around me were referring to CBC as "Communist Broadcasting Corporation" (laughingly, not bitterly) when I was a kid.  It's reputation for leaning left is not new.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
As such, it is not surprising that the media, who have to sell their product, cater to the majority.

Not a conspiracy.  Just business.

If the CBC were CTV or Global, you'd have a point.

The CBC is a tax funded entity. It is not a business, in the usual sense, nor is it a normal business when it comes to operating. It depends on taxpayer funding, for the most part. Kind of like a forced upon you PBS.

"...the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;

...the programming provided by the Corporation should:

be predominantly and distinctively Canadian, reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions,
actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,
be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities,
strive to be of equivalent quality in English and French,
contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,
be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and
reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada."

I can see a number of their mandated things that they are not providing, IMHO.

At any rate, you cannot have a fall back that business is business when it comes to the CBC. Simply because it is not a business like the others in the category.

The CBC is a publicly funded, biased information and opinion station. Not a business that has to scrabble and meet customer expectation or fulfill their mandate.
 
I love it when these reporters, who have a few years of life experiences, are recent taxpayers, inform us how things should be run.

To add to recceguy's post, Christie Blatchford always down to earth comment.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-mainstream-media-is-starving-but-certainly-not-the-cbc

Christie Blatchford: Mainstream media is starving — but certainly not the CBC
- 29 Jun 18
The government might stop subsidizing CBC online; it might tell the CBC to get out of digital advertising, though of course there’s no guarantee any of those dollars would flow to newspapers


It was literally the day after Justin Trudeau was first elected in 2015 that I noticed the difference. I was in a line-up outside the clerk’s office at the main Toronto courthouse with a bunch of other reporters who were covering a trial, I think that of Toronto Police Const. James Forcillo, who was charged and ultimately convicted of attempted murder in the streetcar shooting death of Sammy Yatim. Lining up is part of the reporter’s life.

Securing public documents in Canadian courts always requires journalists to prostrate ourselves before various officials, fill out endless and sundry forms, overpay for copies of the documents we want, and generally bow and scrape. Anyway, at one point I turned around and realized that the two CBC folks in line had vanished, replaced by interns. And just like that, we were all transported back to the glory days of the CBC, when it was routine that five or six CBC journalists (from TV, radio, French, English, national, local, etc.) not only covered the same events but also often had serfs to do the actual waiting about for them.

The Liberals had just barely been elected, but one of Trudeau’s many promises was to restore — nay, restore and increase — CBC funding that had been sorely cut under Stephen Harper’s government, and happy days were here again already. As the CBC itself reported a year later, in a promises scorecard on the new government, Trudeau had indeed kept his pledge to restore the $115 million in annual cuts imposed by the Tories — and more. That more, as myriad reports on the 2016 budget noted, was “to help drive the public broadcaster’s continuing shift to digital platforms.”

Fast forward to the recent Ontario election campaign. It was May 17. I was following former premier Kathleen Wynne, who had an interview at CBC Radio headquarters in Ottawa, and part of the deal was that we on the press bus were allowed in and put in a room adjacent to the studio where Ontario Today host Rita Celli would talk to the then-Premier and take calls from listeners. Into the building we went and, there before us, like a damp nostalgic dream come to life, was a newsroom the likes of which virtually all Canadian newspapers haven’t seen in more than a decade.

Most of our newsrooms now are funereal, with skeletal staffs and row upon row of empty desks, even in the new, pared down offices to which so many papers have relocated. I could hardly believe it. This place was buzzing. Every desk was filled. Reporters were busy. Phones were ringing. It was bedlam, like every newsroom in the world used to be.

It was the other end of what I have seen every day since the Liberal victory — that so many of the best and brightest young reporters now work for CBC; that it is often only a reporter from the CBC who has the luxury of sitting through entire criminal trials; that it is the CBC, not either of the major national papers, which has bureaus all over the country; that whenever someone else leaves the newspaper business, frequently the next shoe to drop is that they’ve gone to the CBC.

Nota bene: Many of these people aren’t going to work for CBC TV or CBC Radio, but for the CBC website, the direct competitor to newspapers, which, as print advertising revenue continues to plummet, are struggling to survive via their online products. It’s bad enough that the duopoly of Facebook and Google, neither of which employ any journalists, get about 82 per cent of digital ad dollars in Canada. That means, from the get-go, that newspapers are fighting for the scraps. It’s bad enough that most Canadians don’t want to pay for news; as the Public Policy Forum reported last year in its study of the devastated newspaper landscape, only one in five Canadian households pays for newspapers. And it’s bad enough that we in the business have contributed to our own decline and apparent imminent demise. No one would ever accuse newspaper owners and managers of being geniuses.

I remember how, many years ago, the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun both began producing free giveaway mini-versions of the papers for distribution on subways. It made no sense to me: Why would people then pay for the real newspaper if they could get a simplified version for free? Oh, we were told, it will whet their appetites for more. It did nothing of the sort, of course. It merely whetted the collective appetite for free stuff and devalued journalism. But on top of all that, Canadian newspapers directly compete against the CBC website, which is of course richly subsidized by the taxpayers.

God forbid Ottawa should start to subsidize newspapers too. As a journalist, the thought gives me the shudders. But the government might stop subsidizing CBC online; it might tell the CBC to get out of digital advertising, though of course there’s no guarantee any of those dollars would flow to newspapers. Both Postmedia and the Star this week announced yet more voluntary buyouts and/or layoffs and, for Postmedia, more shuttering of small-town and community papers. The situation is frankly desperate.

The memory of that CBC newsroom, all a-buzz and chock-full of people, gets harder and harder to bear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top