Impressed by the Trump administration part II

Spock Senior Member
5,271 posts 8 reps Joined Jul 2013
Thu, Jan 9, 2020 4:25 PM
posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I agree that tax policy and regulations have an effect.  The overall health of the economy - however you want to measure it, though is affected by lots of things beyond just those two factors.  What got me posting on this is the example of QO linking articles to large capital projects - namely new plants.  Those types of investments - hundreds of millions of billions of dollars - are planned and made over many years, not as a reaction of to a new policy announcement alone.  

I do not say the president has no effect on the economy.  But he or she does not cause new mines or billion dollar plants to be announced with that level of immediacy.  That's not against Trump or Obama or anyone else.  The president does not "run" the economy - that is a way to simple way of seeing it.  

Yeah it takes years for these companies to pull the trigger when the time is right.  Trump has made that time right.  If Hiliary was Prez they wouldnt be happening.  Thanks for making my point.

O-Trap Chief Shenanigans Officer
18,909 posts 140 reps Joined Nov 2009
Thu, Jan 9, 2020 4:45 PM
posted by Spock

Yeah it takes years for these companies to pull the trigger when the time is right.  Trump has made that time right.  If Hiliary was Prez they wouldnt be happening.  Thanks for making my point.

So, can you explain the companies that pulled the trigger under Obama's policies?

Also, you completely missed his point.  Many of the things that are coming about "broke ground" when Obama was around, and his policies were in place.

Heretic Son of the Sun
20,517 posts 186 reps Joined Nov 2009
Thu, Jan 9, 2020 4:54 PM
posted by Spock

Yeah it takes years for these companies to pull the trigger when the time is right.  Trump has made that time right.  If Hiliary was Prez they wouldnt be happening.  Thanks for making my point.

 

posted by O-Trap

So, can you explain the companies that pulled the trigger under Obama's policies?

Also, you completely missed his point.  Many of the things that are coming about "broke ground" when Obama was around, and his policies were in place.


Just here to LOL at CC being CC.

 

 

Dr Winston O'Boogie Senior Member
3,345 posts 21 reps Joined Oct 2010
Thu, Jan 9, 2020 5:41 PM
posted by Spock

Yeah it takes years for these companies to pull the trigger when the time is right.  Trump has made that time right.  If Hiliary was Prez they wouldnt be happening.  Thanks for making my point.

You are viewing things through a simplistic lens.  One of the examples QO cited was Cleveland Cliffs building a hot briquetted iron plant in Toledo.  This plant was announced during Trump's first year.  However the work done to study whether they should build or buy, what location makes most sense, do they have the customers to take the end product, how will affect market pricing, etc. all were years in the making.  

 

 

Dr Winston O'Boogie Senior Member
3,345 posts 21 reps Joined Oct 2010
Thu, Jan 9, 2020 5:43 PM
posted by like_that

Every time you present this argument, you are just making a case for why the Government needs to stay the fuck out of everything.  You just don't realize it yet.

Huh?

QuakerOats Senior Member
11,701 posts 53 reps Joined Nov 2009
Tue, Jan 14, 2020 2:19 PM

 

Nice to see The Donald at the National Championship game last night, and the lovely First Lady.

 

Spock Senior Member
5,271 posts 8 reps Joined Jul 2013
Tue, Jan 14, 2020 2:32 PM
posted by QuakerOats

 

Nice to see The Donald at the National Championship game last night, and the lovely First Lady.

 

Did he get booed?

QuakerOats Senior Member
11,701 posts 53 reps Joined Nov 2009
Tue, Jan 14, 2020 3:19 PM

 

 

Hardly.

 

Standing ovation and USA chant.

 

 

MAGA

QuakerOats Senior Member
11,701 posts 53 reps Joined Nov 2009
Tue, Jan 14, 2020 3:19 PM

The Trump administration has proposed diverting an extra $7.2 billion from military construction projects to fund a wall on the US-Mexican border. The funds would extend the wall to 885 miles from a planned 509 miles.

CNBC (1/14),  The Washington Post (tiered subscription model) (1/13) 

 

8,788 posts 21 reps Joined Nov 2009
Tue, Jan 14, 2020 3:53 PM
posted by QuakerOats

The Trump administration has proposed diverting an extra $7.2 billion from military construction projects to fund a wall on the US-Mexican border. The funds would extend the wall to 885 miles from a planned 509 miles.

CNBC (1/14),  The Washington Post (tiered subscription model) (1/13) 

 

Cool. 

I was at a meeting with the Army Corps last month.  They were bidding and about to award several water, harbor and dredging projects, but were told nope, hold off because as the Colonel said funds were being transferred to the desert. Those firms that submitted bids did not receive any compensation for putting in their bids. 

Good to know funds that could be used for actual projects is being sent to the wall. 

Spock Senior Member
5,271 posts 8 reps Joined Jul 2013
Tue, Jan 14, 2020 4:45 PM
posted by ptown_trojans_1

Cool. 

I was at a meeting with the Army Corps last month.  They were bidding and about to award several water, harbor and dredging projects, but were told nope, hold off because as the Colonel said funds were being transferred to the desert. Those firms that submitted bids did not receive any compensation for putting in their bids. 

Good to know funds that could be used for actual projects is being sent to the wall. 

The wall is an actual project.  One that will actual be worth our money

8,788 posts 21 reps Joined Nov 2009
Tue, Jan 14, 2020 6:11 PM
posted by Spock

The wall is an actual project.  One that will actual be worth our money

So were those projects to actually improve waterways, dams, and deeper harbors. Now, those projects are delayed and could hurt commerce along the waterways.

But, sure the wall is worth it. 

Spock Senior Member
5,271 posts 8 reps Joined Jul 2013
Tue, Jan 14, 2020 10:30 PM
posted by ptown_trojans_1

So were those projects to actually improve waterways, dams, and deeper harbors. Now, those projects are delayed and could hurt commerce along the waterways.

But, sure the wall is worth it. 

Lol at waterway commerce being more important then just letting anyone or anything crossing our borders.

8,788 posts 21 reps Joined Nov 2009
Wed, Jan 15, 2020 7:55 AM
posted by Spock

Lol at waterway commerce being more important then just letting anyone or anything crossing our borders.

Goods getting from the ports to factories and stores> a multi billion $ wall that will not solve the issue of illegal immigration. 

QuakerOats Senior Member
11,701 posts 53 reps Joined Nov 2009
Wed, Jan 15, 2020 10:26 AM

 

National security, protecting The People, thwarting the drug flow, and destroying human trafficking are exceedingly important. 

 

As well, doing what you said you would do, as rare as that is in politics, is highly important ……….especially given the radical resistance at every turn.

QuakerOats Senior Member
11,701 posts 53 reps Joined Nov 2009
Wed, Jan 15, 2020 10:27 AM

 

29,000

 

 

Take care

 

O-Trap Chief Shenanigans Officer
18,909 posts 140 reps Joined Nov 2009
Wed, Jan 15, 2020 12:59 PM
posted by QuakerOats

National security, protecting The People, thwarting the drug flow, and destroying human trafficking are exceedingly important. 

Most illegal immigrants are people who fly to the US and outstay their documentation's time limits.

Most of the actually-dangerous drugs smuggled into the country are through either the postal service (look it up) or through checkpoints that already do, and will continue to, exist, as points of entry/exit are necessary, even with a wall in place.  Also, most of the smugglers are US citizens and/or residents.

Most human trafficking goes through the POEs.
 

posted by QuakerOats

As well, doing what you said you would do, as rare as that is in politics, is highly important ……….especially given the radical resistance at every turn.

Okay, then I'm waiting for Mexico to pay for a wall.  That was, after all, the actual claim.  This is a bait-and-switch.

QuakerOats Senior Member
11,701 posts 53 reps Joined Nov 2009
Wed, Jan 15, 2020 4:45 PM

 

 

So you are saying that 20-30 million illegal immigrants flew here, and overstayed their visa.  Amazing.

 

(Vastly) most of the illegal drugs come here through Mexico.  Doing the same thing we have been doing is a mega fail.

 

Mexican cartels control human trafficking to the tune of $150 billion. Yes, that is a B.  Doing the same thing we have been doing is a mega fail.

 

Mexico can pay for the wall in a number of ways; I guess you thought it would be one check payable to the United States Treasury.

O-Trap Chief Shenanigans Officer
18,909 posts 140 reps Joined Nov 2009
Wed, Jan 15, 2020 7:43 PM
posted by QuakerOats

 

So you are saying that 20-30 million illegal immigrants flew here, and overstayed their visa.  Amazing.

I didn't say that.  You did. Arguing against it is a strawman.

I did, however say that it's how most immigrants are here, but apparently, when I said "most," you read "all."

The majority of illegals in the US enter legally.

(Also, the highest number I've seen is 22 million total illegals, but let's not let a silly little thing like numbers get in the way of some good, ol'-fashioned Chicken Little nonsense.)

 

posted by QuakerOats

(Vastly) most of the illegal drugs come here through Mexico.  Doing the same thing we have been doing is a mega fail.

Most of the illegal drugs are Marijuana, and it's not close.

Most of the "dangerous" drugs (re-read what I wrote; it's in there) come via postal service or through the POEs.  Actually, a good chunk of the Marijuana comes through the POE, as well.

Unless you think the wall is going to block off the POEs, your statement that they come from Mexico is irrelevant.

 

posted by QuakerOats

Mexican cartels control human trafficking to the tune of $150 billion. Yes, that is a B.  Doing the same thing we have been doing is a mega fail.

Why don't we just have Congress stick their collective thumbs up their asses?  It's different ... ish.  It'll be just as effective as building a wall to block off land that already isn't used to smuggle.  And it'll cost taxpayers less.

Also, that $150 billion is worldwide.  Not just the Mexican cut of things.

 

posted by QuakerOats

Mexico can pay for the wall in a number of ways; I guess you thought it would be one check payable to the United States Treasury.

What, they're going to pay for it in bags of wampum?  In trade they're not asking for that we deny them (that sounds about like what it'd be)?  Let's hear the super-duper 4-D chess way we're going to force a sovereign state to pay for something they neither asked for nor cared about.

8,788 posts 21 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 17, 2020 8:12 AM

Looks some there was some injuries from the Iranian missile strike. 

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/01/eleven-us-troops-were-injured-jan-8-iran-missile-strike/162502/

Also, wooboy, this excerpt is pretty rough. These are typical as one ends an Administration and former officials spill the beans. I've read the ones from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama years, but these so far about Trump are all pretty damning. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/youre-a-bunch-of-dopes-and-babies-inside-trumps-stunning-tirade-against-generals/2020/01/16/d6dbb8a6-387e-11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html

Login

Register

Already have an account? Login