Trump budget proposal
The Trump administration today released its overall rough budget plan for 2018. This is not a detailed budget, but an summary of their plan, indicating where they wish to cut and where they wish to increase budgets. The proposal is also not complete, making no mention of the administration’s budget plans for many departments, such as the National Science Foundation.
Science research in the federal government is significantly impacted, but not as badly as most of the articles you will read in the mainstream anti-Trump, Democratic Party press. A few examples:
- Science: NIH, DOE Office of Science face deep cuts in Trump’s first budget
- Science: A grim budget day for U.S. science: analysis and reaction to Trump’s plan
- Nature: US science agencies face deep cuts in Trump budget
- Washington Post: NASA budget would cut Earth science and education
- Washington Post: Federal health department would face a nearly 18 percent cut
I must note that not all the news stories are blindly hostile to this budget proposal:
- Washington Post: Trump would increase Energy Department funds to manage nuclear stockpile
- SpacePolicyOnLine: Trump Budget Request Kills ARM, Supports SLS/Orion and Public Private Partnerships
- USA Today: Trump’s NASA budget preserves Mars mission, cuts Earth science, asteroid trip, education
Of all the science agencies, NASA probably came off with the least change. The budget cuts only about 5% from the agency’s Earth science budget, while cutting some specific Earth science missions. The budget also supports SLS/Orion, though it finally puts the nail in the coffin of the asteroid redirect mission, an Obama proposal that has never garnered any interest from anyone else.
The key to understanding all these budget cuts is to see them in context, to compare the 2018 proposed budgets with the budgets these agencies received in the past. The table on the right gives some of this context (numbers shown are in millions) for several of the science agencies most effected by the proposal. The proposal is not detailed enough to pin down the changes for many other science agencies, but from this table it is clear that the Trump administration is not calling for the end of science, and is proposing some reasonable cost cutting, something that has been rare in government for many years.
What will be missed by most of the press about this Trump budget proposal is that it is not trying to trim the size of the federal government. While it cuts spending in many departments, those cuts are entirely aimed at providing room to raise the budget of the Defense Department by $54 billion. While I can applaud the desire of the Trump administration to be revenue neutral, the stark fact remains that by remaining revenue neutral Trump still leaves us with a gigantic annual federal deficit. They have made no effort to balance the overall budget.
Worse, this proposal would repeal the Budget Control Act of 2011, which imposed sequestration to the federal budget and has actually done the most in the past half century to bring that budget under control. Once this act is repealed, it will allow the spenders in Congress (of which the Republicans are as guilty as the Democrats) to open the floodgates once again. This will not be good.
Let me add one good aspect of the Trump budget. It proposes to eliminate a whole range of government political agencies that accomplish nothing but provide pork or to propagandize the Democratic Party’s positions:
The Budget also proposes to eliminate funding for other independent agencies, including: the African Development Foundation; the Appalachian Regional Commission; the Chemical Safety Board; the Corporation for National and Community Service; the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the Delta Regional Authority; the Denali Commission; the Institute of Museum and Library Services; the Inter-American Foundation; the U.S. Trade and Development Agency; the Legal Services Corporation; the National Endowment for the Arts; the National Endowment for the Humanities; the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation; the Northern Border Regional Commission; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; the United States Institute of Peace; the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness; and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Getting these eliminated will at least be a start to cleaning up the mess in Washington.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon. from any other book seller, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Trump, like any rational person, attempts to cut some of the “permanent” tap roots that the eternal governmental parasite depends in order to redirect funds to where they are truly needed and to lessen the tax load on the general public.
Trump understands that the government has too much money and their insatiable hunger for more and more money can never be satiated.
Like I said, Trump is a rational person in regards to these issues, unfortunately he is dealing with a massive irrational and unreasonable status quo governmental monster that demands it be fed. It has its tax slaves that are obligated no matter how unreasonable their behavior to pay for its excesses and abuses.
This must end and there is no one else able to even imagine ending it. Ignorance is bliss, lets hope that Trump is able to remain as ignorance as possible and as need be.
I overheard the president when he discussed the budget with Anticimex:
“- What about the rocket space nerds?
– Don’t let’em out of their university hospital! Don’t even touch the key. I only claim Earth, they can have the rest of space. Sit still and do nothing. And landing on Europa? Arthur C Clark told me that we own all other worlds, just not that one. I don’t wanna provoke war with spaceIS, yet.”
The gigantic annual federal deficit will be paid for by simply not letting old people eat. They voted for it all of their life, so it is only fair.
I want all government budgets to be cut, except NASA’s. We are all easily corrupted by others’ free monies. A politician who says and does good things, or at least avoids doing bad things, is a new experience for me.
Good bye Big Bird, Bert, and Ernie. Oh, the children!
His budget is a bold and direct assault on the Washington and globalist status quo who operate in terms of 1% changes and 10 year plans. Virtually all of Washington, including the RINOs, will fight him.
I suspect he will also get pushback from Republican voters once the services that effect them are at risk of being cut. Because politicians offer benefits and don’t speak the truth, voters have become addicted to “free” services and insulated from the effects of their cost to our national debt and security.
I think the many, many Liberal Billionares who inhabit America and support these programs step up and take up the slack? Lets see which one of them steps up first. “Its for the kids.”
The worst hurt? The bureaucrats who administer these programs.
I’m a bit conflicted about dropping the ARM flight. On one hand, if we EVER hope to learn how to divert an asteroid, we’ve got learn how to grapple it and really hold on to the place we decide we need to divert it from. We’ve had an about 50% successful crash-landing on one, and it took the ops team something like a year to find the lander, if I remember correctly. So, I would say that we have a lot to learn if we want to land a propulsion package where we want it on an asteroid and divert it as a matter of planetary defense. On the other hand, do we need to send people to learn what we need to learn? Maybe we do, maybe we don’t. It’s possible to ultimately be more efficient to learn the skills with solely robotic systems. I don’t know the answer, I’m just pondering…
Craig: In truth the Trump administration didn’t really dump the asteroid mission. What they have done is admit to reality. ARM has never gotten any support in Congress. Its funding was always minimal, at best. In fact, much of the funding came not from Congressional budget approvals but from NASA fiddling with its budget to find money it could reassign to the project.
Craig Beasley,
The (asteroid like) small bodies most valuable to investigate are the moons of Mars. They are easier to reach regularly, they could provide some infrastructure for future Mars missions and their very existence baffles astronomers! And if there are any “stepping stones to Mars”, those two are it. Asteroid scientists in general seem to be uninterested in ARM, they have lots of meteorites in the museums already, but are very excited about finding out more about Phobos and Deimos.
ESA recently canceled (or well, postponed the financing of) AIM, the planned orbiter that would accompany NASA’s DART impactor. An impactor is a great way to explore an asteroid, but without an orbiter that makes absorption spectroscopy of the resulting impact plume, much science is lost. DART/AIM was a serious asteroid deflection exploration mission, which became impossible because of international so called “cooperation”.
ARM doesn’t relate to asteroid deflection. It would just lift a small boulder off the most easy to reach asteroid.
If you want meaningful cuts that are taken seriously, there can be NO sacred cows.
People here will find “good reasons” not to cut NASA, others will find “good reasons” not to cut EPA, NIH etc. and the Trump admin seems to have “good reasons” not to cut DOD.
A mistake – Trump should have said “we’re going to spend $54 billion strengthening our defense and it’s going to come out of the rest of the “defense” budget.
Amazing how efficiencies can be found when your job is on the line.
Mitch S. wrote,
A mistake – Trump should have said “we’re going to spend $54 billion strengthening our defense and it’s going to come out of the rest of the “defense” budget.
Amazing how efficiencies can be found when your job is on the line.
I couldn’t agree more.
I wish, at a minimum, Trump had said that he would order an audit of the DoD, which hasn’t happened in a long time. There is much fraud, waste, and abuse that can be eliminated.
Garry and Mitch: We must repeatedly remind ourselves that Trump remains, at heart, a liberal Democrat. He has shifted considerably rightward, but all that has done has made him a Kennedy-like Democrat, still in favor of big government but insistent that it be run properly.
I can’t disagree with a desire to run the government well. I just don’t think that is possible with the government we presently have. A harsh knife is necessary. Trump is not really the man to do it.
I haven’t completely given up hope that Trump is the man to do it; when he’s been at his best, he’s shown that he views the world through the lens of a businessman rather than an ideologue or politician of any sort.
A good businessman would run an audit on a department that recently fell under his responsibility; I don’t necessarily expect Trump to do it, but if he did, I would be less surprised than I would have if any of our recent presidents had done it.
I haven’t made up my mind on Trump and his effectiveness yet; his words and actions are too much of a mixed bag. I made up my mind on Hillary a long time ago.
As I’ve maintained consistently, if Trump is going to be effective, the greater part of his effectiveness will come from getting Congress to act. He can propose all the budgets and other legislation that he wants, but unless he can convince Congress to adopt them, they will all be for naught.
Robert said “We must repeatedly remind ourselves that Trump remains, at heart, a liberal Democrat.”
He may be, but he’s not partisan like many on the left today. He’s also surrounded himself with strong conservative voices.
I see him more as a non ideological NY businessman, comfortable with moving between both sides of the isle.
“I can’t disagree with a desire to run the government well. I just don’t think that is possible with the government we presently have. A harsh knife is necessary. Trump is not really the man to do it.”
I disagree in the extreme with this statement, Trump is neither Democrat nor Republican, Trump is an American who is very tired of the status quo, as am I and many others. Trump is the destroyer of things in our country that need destroying, Trump is a hired hit man and not a priest, Trump is a political mercenary hired by the people to take out the system that threatens to destroy us all.
“Trump is not the man to do it”.
If not Trump then who? The answer is no one, Trump is it. As unconventional and as maddening as he may be at the moment. Any other leader who might be able to become elected does not have the unique skill set that Trump possess, no one else. Any one of them that can be elected will play the game by the party rules given them. Trump has the ability to change the rules and push them to the limit in order to change the paradigm.
Trump has the potential to be the most significant president in the last 150 years, maybe all of U.S. history. Trump is the harshest knife we will ever be able to work with in the office of the president. If Trump fails the Leftist, Globalist installed body of government that has been crafted over the past 30 years will once again seep to the surface and things will just continue as they have planned it to be without a break in its stride.
Within 6 or so months Trump will have a better handle on the levers of power, his Twitter technique and penchant and his ability to cross the aisle in order to break Chuck Schumers Borg agenda of control and will begin to change how the machine works.
Trump is not the man to do it? Then who in your opinion is? (that can get elected and be empowered by the people) Its not perfect, but its never perfect, and Trump, good, bad or otherwise is IT. If Trump was not able to prevail we would be having a very different conversation here and a very definite different potential for the future. I am not even entirely sure that in the long term it will make any difference seeing how immense this monster is now and has been allowed to become.
After all that has gone on, the unconventional campaign that spent a fraction of his “superiors”, the miracle win, the entirely mis read election contest on the parts of many here, Trump is not it. I don’t get you some times. Just like when I hear Stephen Hawking make political pronouncements and projections on the fate of man. I think, maybe you should stick to theoretical physics Stephen, your tendency to think logically in linear mathematical terms seems to work well in application to the cosmos, but that kind of thinking usually does not translate well into politics.
Cotour–
if what you are saying is “we are stuck with Trump for 4 years,” I would agree.
One of his first actions was to appoint Rince Priebus as chief-of-staff.
Need I say more?
No, you misinterpret me, entirely. Reread what I wrote.
Rinse Prebus (what kind of a name is that? I guess its better than having to say Rheingold Prebus) was I have to assume Trumps compromise with the Republican leadership so that they were assured an inside man at the White House. That may last, and it may not.
Name the leadership that can be elected that has the stones to operate at the level that is needed. Good luck.
Ted Cruz? (I will mention him to save you time) Another on going fantasy as I have pointed out to you and others many, many months ago. Good man, but will never see the power side of the oval office Resolute desk. Trump and his manic ego mania and obsessive drive to “win” as an American is invaluable at precisely this moment in time.
Cotour, I think that of all the recent presidents (and candidates), Trump has the highest odds of being able to do what you say he can, but those odds are still fairly low. He also has the highest odds of making unforced errors that lead to something very bad (he makes unforced errors nearly every week).
I’ll take that trade off over the certainty of keeping on the same bad path we’ve been on, but that doesn’t mean I have much confidence Trump can pull off what you say he can.
The second most frustrating thing about Trump is I continually see him given softballs to hit out of the park, and he completely flubs his response. The most frustrating thing is that I have yet to see much evidence of on-the-job learning.
Only time will show us Trump’s effect on our nation and the world.
Trump is President and we are stuck with him for 4 years.
Priebus, Ryan and Mitch, control the levers of power– pure crony-rino’s and Trump claims they are doing “wonderful things.”
I would predict he adds $4-5 Trillion to the debt, and when the financial-asset bubble does implode, he will inject even more phony money into the system, than did Obama.
Garry- good stuff.
Highly recommend this lecture:
Murray Rothbard:
“Pietism and the Power Brokers”
lecture 5, American Economy and the end of Laissez faire 1870-WW2.
https://youtu.be/3YrZfKWDq0M
(2:13:16)
I do not disagree with you Garry.
The monster “government” may have by design gotten much to unweildy to claw back to a reasonable American interests position and may be hurtling down the Globalist, One World government path no matter what we do. But I am sure of one thing, Trump and his crazy assed unconventional style is probably our last realistic chance of doing anything about it.
Trump may be our only hope, and then Trump may just be a hiccup on the trajectory to the modern day One World de nuttified America “utopia”. But the election results around the country in the lesser races indicates different. The Dems, now Leftist led, are consistently losing and they press on to the Left by electing more Leftist leadership. This 60’S radical condition must play itself out over time and be flushed from the Democrat party in order for them to re emerge as once again American political animals. Because right now they are un American political animals, although most regular Democrats are unaware of their condition.
And the paradigm shift begins.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-18/g-20-drops-anti-protectionist-pledge-as-trump-stance-goes-global
Crazy assed or not, Trump can manifest real change. The world lines up to readjust how it does business, from the Chinese right down the line. This what leadership is, Obama, the Democrats and their ilk do not understand any of this. I look at it this way, America exported its technology and capitalism to the rest of the world and its corporations gamed the entire thing and is directly responsible for the world entering the 21st century. And now that the world is operating in a fashion that embraces capitalism and has built upon it America can now bring back what it once exported to once again reinvent the world in the American tradition. America in many ways owns the world, I have not one problem with that.
This is a positive interpretation or result of G.Bush sr’s. / Neocon agenda “One World Government / New World Order” mantra from 30 years ago, although there have been many negatives that have come from it also. The tide goes out, and then the tide comes back. Depending on who’s driving the bus and at what point they get behind the wheel. Trump is the correct driver at the correct time. Timing is everything in life.
Trumps asymmetrical think has the potential to actually accomplish what needs to be accomplished, re Americanising America and the world.
Yow, Trump has the potential to re Americanise America and the World?
He’s definitely not the Guy for that job. As Garry has noted, he lets too many softball opportunities pass by, for the reason he doesn’t know they are softballs.
He’ll definitely “manifest change,” but I would put forth the proposition- it won’t be what large numbers of his followers assume he will do.
This is leadership, but is it good leadership? Leadership is only good if it leads the followers to somewhere better than they were headed.
Is protectionism a good thing? In the extreme case, no it’s not.
If Trump got exactly what he says he wants at this point, I think it would be bad (too protectionist).
But wait, Trump is a master negotiator, and his opening offers are often outrageous, to get his counterpart to give in to what he really wants.
But wait, even if that’s true in this case, what unintended consequences are going to arise from people taking his opening offer seriously? Where will those consequences lead us? When you’re president, the market takes your words seriously, whether you want it to or not.
And what exactly is Trump’s endgame with trade? If he achieves it, would it be good? If it’s good, how will it change in the face of new events (new technology, an unforeseen war, natural disasters, etc.)? If he falls short of or overshoots his end goal, where does that take us?
People following your stated wishes is by definition leadership. But where they end up defines whether it’s good or bad leadership, and we’ve got a long way to go before we can judge where Trump takes us (the world) on trade and whether it’s good or bad.
Sometimes I’m reminded of the alleged statement in a British Army officer’s fitness report: “His men would follow him anywhere, mostly out of curiosity.”
I have much more confidence in my interpretation of the current and unfolding potentials of our new president and America because of his leadership than I have in yours. For the obvious reasons.
Gary, good points all. Trump throws a lot of crap out to create fear and confusion and to get peoples attention. Then when you are paying attention things can be worked out to everyone’s benefit. (or at least to our benefit)
What does the future hold? Who knows, I just know to continue the direction and posture that we have had in the recent past is a road to destruction and irrelevancy. The road to Chinese un confronted domination of the planet? Russian un confronted domination of the world? I chose the American continued domination of the world.
So, what will you do? Call Obama for some direction? Not me, Im all in.
I really have no clue what DJT actually thinks.
I do however, know exactly where Priebus, Ryan, and Mitch stand, and we’ll just have to see to what extent the Venn diagrams overlap, if at all, going forward.
And to circle back to the original thread– Trumps budget proposal covers the 2018-19 fiscal year. The 2017-18 spending is already out the door and massive increases from 2008-10 are baked into the base spending number’s.
Trumps Venn diagram circle must engulf them all.
Read this article to remember what the Left Dems have in mind if Trump fails:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-sealed-americas-fate?CMP=share_btn_fb
She has a point about Hillary but after that it’s a muddle of inept thinking.
But they might convince enough to vote for it!
I read this:
“Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present.”
I can not help but think that the definition that this writer calls “Neoliberalism” Deregulation, privatisation, austerity and declining living standards are more about a Neocon type agenda than a Neoliberal agenda.
The Liberals / Leftists “Neo Liberals” of today promote deregulation, privatisation and austerity? Neo Liberals are conservative? I think what has happened is that the successful execution of the Neocon agenda by Bush sr, era players has incorporated the Liberal leadership of our country in their push for the New World Order / One World Government and has forced it to morph into what we have today in order that they have a seat at the table. Party has not mattered one bit over the last 30 years. Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama have all just taken the all encompassing Neocon baton, ran with it and passed in to the next “leader” / puppet. The Neocon agenda having incorporated the Liberals and Leftists has IMO destroyed themselves and the agenda and has become revealed to the public. And the public, although slow to awaken, does not like it one bit.
And who pretty fearlessly and matter of factly has revealed this now sick and perverted agenda to the public? TRUMP.
Trump is cutting it. He is indeed as much a democrat as he is a Republican. He’s neither and he is efficiently destroying both parties, and along with them the news media and the government bureaucracy (though some of them will survive and thrive) and we will see him destroy foreign governments en mass. The meeting with the Merkel today was quite hostile, if one reads between the lines of what was not said. US and EU are not friends anymore. And guess who will win win win.
Do not underestimate the Trump, this guy is intelligent and has a plan of some kind.
“Rinse Prebus (what kind of a name is that?”)
I have that text stamped on my tooth brush cream tube, something like Rinse pre brushing.
Americans have funny names. In Scandinavia we simply name children after wild animals or trees or the landscape sometimes the Bible. Officers named their soldiers strong, brave, quick. Still much better than Rinse Prebertal.
To your point, Local, take a look at The Merkles face, it says volumes. (You scare the hell out of me! I would think she is thinking)
http://drudgereport.com/
And I believe the Name Reince is short for Rheingold, which I would assume is German.
Cotour,
You asked: “If not Trump then who?”
Ted Cruz. But I have answered this question of yours before. That you ignore everyone else’s answers to your own flawed answer suggests to me that you are gloating over our victory of putting a liberal Democrat in the presidency. Under your way of thinking, it is a good thing that we have Trump, because we would be lost without him. You just aren’t outright saying “neener neener.”
Ted Cruz would not be advocating for liberal Democrat solutions, such as Trump’s trillion dollar infrastructure investments (which haven’t worked in the past) or tariffs (which also haven’t worked in the past).
Trump needs conservatives around him to explain the correct solutions to him, yet he keeps leftwing advocates around him, too. You assume that he is only listening to the conservatives. So far he has not moved so very far toward conservatism and other solutions that have been proved to work. Trump has demonstrated only a willingness to take on the establishment, not the ability to beat them. His best work has been to use Twitter, rather than the press, to disseminate information. Trump ran as a Republican either because he did not think that he could win the Democratic nomination against Clinton (Sanders showed that he was correct) or because he was intending to mess up the general election and let Clinton win (but Clinton was such a terrible candidate that she only won the Democratic primary because of the fixed nature of that race but also she was so terrible that she couldn’t muster Democrats to vote for her rather than Trump). These are the “unique skills” that Trump offers, and I do not like them.
Cruz would still be offering conservative solutions, and he would not need to surround himself with conservatives to explain conservatism to him, as he has firsthand knowledge of conservatism. Cruz has already demonstrated both the willingness and the ability to confront and beat the establishment, but you, Cotour, seem to think that these actual actions by Cruz were mere fantasies rather than reality; Cruz has actual, practical experience dealing with the Washington establishment. These are the skills that Cruz offers, and I like them.
Cruz is not only an alternative, he is a better alternative.
Scott Walker would also be a better choice than Trump, with similar ability, skills, and willingness to beat the establishment with conservative values.
Trump is not going to beat out George Washington as the most significant president in all of US history. Washington set the example that Trump’s personality and skills cannot live up to. For example, Washington would never have favored the Kilo ruling from the Supreme Court, as Trump has done.
I agree that Trump, bad as he is, is “IT” for the next four years, but you are the one who foisted him upon us, rather than someone who could actually change America from the socialist society it has become to one that advocates actual liberty.
Just because Democrats are losing, around the country, does not make Trump the right president. They were losing before he became president. Trump still does not know right from left. Be careful over being proud that Trump manifests change; Obama did, too. Most of the change that Trump has manifested so far comes not because of the man in the office but because of the party in the office. We had hoped for a better defined future that the “who knows” that Trump offers, and Cruz would have provided more certainty.
Your blind faith in the liberal Democrat to be miraculously conservative has blinded you to the reality of the man and of the other — better – options that we once had but that you denied to us. Your blind confidence in your own interpretation of mere potential does little to instill confidence in me; my eyes and ears are open, and Trump’s kept promises, so far, are only the promises that changed so much over the campaign that anything he did would constitute a kept promise.
He still has not kept the only ones that didn’t waver:
Clinton is at large.
Sanctuary cities are still dens of villainy and treachery.
Obamacare will remain in place.
The Wall is still a dream (to be fair, he waivered a bit on this one, so it may not be a broken promise, as modified, after all).
As for “deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade,” the Obama administration offered none of those, and that is why “a hell of a lot of people are in pain.”
Rather than deregulation, Obama and his new form of liberalism added tens of thousands of regulations.
Rather than privatization, they nationalized GM and Chrysler and regulated the rest of industry (especially healthcare) so heavily that companies are limited in the decisions that they can make in order to do business – effectively, government is running America’s companies through regulations.
Rather than austerity, Obama printed literally trillions of dollars for government to spend recklessly, added ten trillion to the national debt, and added tens of trillions to the unfunded future liabilities.
Corporations are unwilling to take the financial losses to bring US dollars back from overseas in order to increase their trade in America. In addition, the Obama administration was favoring Democrat-owned and run corporations as winners over Republican ones as losers. It is nice to be a Democrat crony.
The lack of freedom of choice is why so many people are in pain, and so far Trump is not changing that.
And neither Cruz nor Walker will ever be the president. Maybe you would like Jesus to run? Here is an alert for you Edward, Jesus could not be elected and empowered by the people either.
Lets stick with reality rather than ideals that will never be.
And as far as Neener, neerner goes, you have not been correct about reading any of what has gone on in politics as far as this last election cycle is concerned, why would you think that you would be reading it correctly now? You told everyone what it was that you thought the ideal candidate would be, but that was your subjective ideal.
Makes no sense.
Its like Stephan Hawking prognosticating about politics and the fate of man. Last time I checked Hawking was a theoretical physicist. Does not mean that he can not have an opinion…… and then what?
“Neener, neerner”? , I missed something somewhere.
Ah, Ted Cruz, Of course Cotour is correct – how good a Pres you would be only counts if you can win the office.
Nobody can know, but my guess is had Cruz been nominated he would have lost to Hillary.
Cruz is not good at connecting with people – look howTrump beat him.
Doesn’t mean Cruz isn’t a good man, but a successful pol needs certain people skills.
But I have further questions about Cruz. I’m not sure if he’s a good. dedicated man wiht weak people skills or an oily politician who has positioned himself as a “moral conservative”.
For me there were two key moments:
I was impressed with Cruz when he wrote an editorial about why he was opposing TPP, pointing out that he had to go to the internet to find out what was in the bill. His willingness to buck the leadership was refreshing.
But then there was Cruz at the RNC, teasing the audience for 20 minutes then essentially saying since he didn’t get the nomination he doesn’t care who wins. If he honestly felt he could not endorse Trump he should have declined to speak.
Now Cruz has a further opportunity to prove himself one way or the other.
Trump is facing massive opposition and various factions trying to pull him one way or the another.
If Cruz is Presidential material, he’ll unite the conservative wing and help Trump negotiate with the rest – provide a counter (and sometimes an aid) to Ryan etc. to push through the difficult but necessary parts of the agenda.
Haven’t heard much from Cruz so far… is he hoping Trump will implode so he, Cruz can come back in 2020?
Such an approach is a way to almost guarantee a President Warren, or Booker, or Franken unless Trump and Republicans throw Cruz down a well.
So we’ll see, and it is important for the conservative wing to have a good leader, someone who can guide the Republicans in general. I’ll be happy if it turns out Cruz is truly committed and willing to work with people or take a stand when needed , to get done what needs to be done and promote conservative ideas even if it means staying in the back seat.
I too had early hopes for Walker. With more seasoning he may still be a contender.
And there is another conservative, one who has greatly impressed me with his willingness to put up with crap for the greater good – Mike Pence.
The Conservative wing of the republican party, is despised by Priebus, Ryan, and Mitch.
Mitch:
You become a heretic here if you speak against the certainty of a president Cruz administration. Nice guy, has his place in the Conservative machine, but will never become president.
“Neener, neener” is referring to me twisting the knife a bit on Wayne and Edward. The two of them, along with many others here totally misread Trumps potential and subsequent win. Others did not. I suppose they were guided by their personal distaste for the man, I see him and his potential very differently. And now after all that and he is in a real power position their comment? “We are stuck with Trump for at least four years”. And then what?
That pisses me off! You could hit some people over the head with reality and still they insist on their “preferred” reality. Sound familiar? No better in some respects to the snow flake generation IMO.
Like him or not it seems that he is going in the general correct direction. A difficult thing to do after 30 years of treasonous activity by both party leaderships.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/355719/
Who else would be actually accomplishing this? NOOOOOO OOOOOOONE. All of the rest of the leadership in the Republican party would be bogged down in Washington BS and would be playing the traditional Washington sell out everyone game. “Were stuck with him for four years”. I will take eight.
Wayne, true
“The Conservative wing of the republican party, is despised by Priebus, Ryan, and Mitch.”
But Mitch, Ryan and Priebus are despised by many Trump supporters and conservatives and they need those groups to maintain Republican power.
So while there is no love-fest in store, there is an opportunity for conservatives to work with Trump and get better deals.
Another task is connecting with and educating voters – it’s much easier to grow spending and hand out goodies than to reign in spending. people have to understand the need and have faith in the ability of the leaders to carry it out fairly. Otherwise the Dem/Socialist song will be calling.
Cotour,
I have more doubts/concerns about Trump than you (of course I’ll be thrilled if my doubts turn out to be unfounded).
I never thought Trump was a conservative. He’s a NYC Republican – someone who sometimes straddles the line between Repub and Democrat. But Trump is not committed to a particular political dogma – he’s a businessman who does deals.
Now Trump is the Pres so he’s the the one who will do or not do what is needed.
I find it a bit silly when conservatives wring their hands and shout – “Ah ha, he’s not really a conservative!!” because Trump never was.
But he will make deals and conservatives must be seen as the ones who have the stuff it takes to make the best deal – one that will have lasting benefits.
Guaranteed hardcore “true believers” will be disappointed but you can never get everything so you figure out and focus on what’s most important.
Let me put it this way, if Trump chose to sit in the Oval Office behind the Resolute Desk in his boxer shorts and played Arnold Palmer Golf on his Oval Office XBox it will be much, much better than the alternative.
Trump could do nothing for four, even eight years and its better than the alternative. He of course will not do that so anything he does I am pretty much behind, as I suspect you and any other reasonable person would be. And those who continue to wring their hands, well just keep wringing. We will do it without you.
Thats how is see this entire situation.
Cotour–
A bit melodramatic (just a tad.)
-I rarely bring up Ted Cruz. “Me thinks though doth protest too loudly.”
HRC had to be stopped by whatever means necessary.
Now, we are all stuck with Trump, and Preibus, and DeStefano, and literally hundreds more of the Usual Crony Rino Suspect’s.
Didn’t trust Trump when I voted his name, and trust him even less now, when he is totally responsible for everything, good, bad or indifferent.
Mark Levin:
Arizona state legislator just passed convention of states resolution
-March 13, 2017.
https://youtu.be/GyNFAZxNBn0
(25:23)
Yeah, your stuck with him and he apparently is lucky enough to be stuck with you. So lets get over it and get on with it!
Cotour,
You wrote: “And neither Cruz nor Walker will ever be the president.”
Interesting assumption on your part. How many people thought that Trump would never be the president? You even had your own doubts, hoping beyond hope that Trump (the only person that you believed could win over the lawless, corrupt Clinton) would have a chance to beat Clinton. You continue to fail to understand just how unelectable Clinton was. Had either Cruz or Walker been on the Republican ticket, you and millions like you would have voted for them, too. You also continue to insist upon the fantasy that Trump is the only person on Earth who can effect change in America.
Senator Cruz already knows how to work with his fellow legislators and how to work the system. That is one of his skills.
These are the reality, not some fantasy.
You wrote: “You told everyone what it was that you thought the ideal candidate would be, but that was your subjective ideal.”
You must be confusing me with someone else.
1) You are incorrect about me describing my ideal candidate.
2) If someone tells you what they think, then it is subjective by definition. It is what they think.
3) Are you thinking that this comment of yours is not yet another instance of you saying “neener neener?”
You wrote: “Its like Stephan Hawking prognosticating about politics and the fate of man. Last time I checked Hawking was a theoretical physicist.”
So only professional politicians and you can be correct on anything political?
You wrote: “The two of them, along with many others here totally misread Trumps potential and subsequent win.”
You are incorrect. You think that we thought that Clinton would win? I, for one, did not. I continuously pointed out that Clinton was a criminal, corrupt politician who could not win — and I was correct. Yes, that is me saying neener neener.
That is why I was comfortable voting for someone else, knowing that my someone else would not win. You’re insecurity about Trump’s chances is why you tried to convince me to vote for the liberal Democrat Trump rather than for a better candidate.
You, Cotour, may be pissed off that we are stuck with him for the next four years, but that is the reality that we see while you worship him as your god and savior.
You wrote: “Who else would be actually accomplishing this?”
Keeping Obamacare? Not building the wall and keeping sanctuary cities, Clinton would have done that much. And she would still be at large, too. Trump’s only accomplishment is that he kept Clinton out of the White House, and my cat could have done that by running for president, and he’s been dead for years.
Preferring a liberal Democrat over an actual conservative in the White House says volumes about your true political leanings, and why you think Trump is taking us in the correct general direction — the actual direction, so far, is nowhere. Apparently, living in New York has affected your understanding of conservatism and good governance.
You wrote: “Trump could do nothing for four, even eight years and its better than the alternative.”
Since the alternative I have suggested is either Cruz or Walker, you seem to be favoring the US staying as leftists as under Obama and Clinton rather than moving back to conservatism under Cruz or Walker.
You wrote: “He of course will not do that so anything he does I am pretty much behind”
So you are behind continued Obamacare, no wall, continued sanctuary cities, and an unpunished Clinton. Once again, you are blindly, emotionally favoring Trump, no matter what liberal Democratic things he does.
You wrote: “So lets get over it and get on with it!”
Now we have to accept his lack broken promises and get on with being led by a liberal Democrat. This statement of yours, Cotour, reminds me of Shut Uppery, where you do not like the fact that your fantasy arguments can’t overcome the reality behind our arguments.
http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/advice-for-phil-robertson-of-duck-dynasty/
Mitch S,
You wrote: “a successful pol needs certain people skills.”
Are you suggesting that someone who gets elected to the Senate is not a successful politician? As for people skills, Trump is seen as a misogynistic racist, which is why the leftist mobs are so desperate to discredit him. His most famous phrase is “you’re fired.” Hardly the most people-friendly phrase to be known for. What kind of people skills do you think he has?
You wrote: “If he honestly felt he could not endorse Trump he should have declined to speak.”
That’s the worst you, Mitch, can come up with? Seems to me that it is for emotional reasons that you don’t favor him, not logical ones.
You wrote: “If Cruz is Presidential material, he’ll unite the conservative wing and help Trump negotiate with the rest”
So, presidential material would assist Trump in keeping Obamacare, overspending another trillion dollars on useless WPA-like projects, and destroy our economy with overbearing tariffs? That, to you, Mitch, is presidential?
Doing these is not going to change the fact that so many people are in pain. Shouldn’t someone who is presidential be fighting for We the People, and not just He the Liberal Democrat Trump?
You wrote: “is he hoping Trump will implode so he, Cruz can come back in 2020?”
I have no insight on Cruz’s hopes or intentions. I only offered him as one alternate who is better than the liberal Democrat Trump. Apparently, such an offer evokes a lot of emotion from Ever Trumpers. Ever Trumpers have put him on a high pedestal, and now Ever Trumpers are complaining that we see the real Trump: ineffective, inexperienced, uninterested in making deals that relieve the pain of We the People.
You wrote: “it is important for the conservative wing to have a good leader, someone who can guide the Republicans in general.”
I hope you, Mitch, don’t think the liberal Democrat Trump is this leader. Wouldn’t it be better to have someone who already understood conservative values guiding the Republican Party and the Republicans in general back to those values?
You wrote: “And there is another conservative, one who has greatly impressed me with his willingness to put up with crap for the greater good – Mike Pence.”
You discount Cruz, who actually, actively fought for us, but you, Mitch, praise Pence for merely being willing to put up with crap?
Cotour sees only potential in Trump (who still hasn’t done anything worth talking about), but we all saw actual action from Cruz. The reality is that Cruz acts, but Trump still only has potential, which he is spending his first 100 days not living up to. I was not impressed with him during the election, and I am disappointed in him now. Cotour built him up so much, before, and he is a great let down now. He is turning out to be a turd.
You wrote: “I find it a bit silly when conservatives wring their hands and shout – “Ah ha, he’s not really a conservative!!” because Trump never was.”
Why is us acknowledging that he was never a conservative and is not one now a bit silly when you, Mitch, admit the truth of that statement? This only serves to convince me that you are acting emotionally, to favor Trump, rather than logically, to favor We the People over Trump’s failure to move us in the direction Cotour thinks he is taking us.
The job of the president is not to make deals. His job is to run the country in such a way that it protects us and our rights from enemies, that the courts properly settle disputes, and that the government stays the hell out of our way.
Edward,
I do “admit” Trump never was a conservative and I think it’s been so obvious that I wonder why anyone expresses frustration when Trump doesn’t act like one.
“acting emotionally, to favor Trump” It does seem that people get some kind of emotional attachment to these characters.
I suppose it’s human nature to hope choosing the right person will solve all problems but it doesn’t work that way.
The founders understood that elected leaders will often be driven by selfish motives so they created a system of checks and balances.
I’m not in love with Trump and i don’t hate Cruz. Frankly I hope they both pleasantly surprise me by doing a great job.
(BTW I saw a clip of Cruz on Face the Nation and liked what I saw – maybe he’s aging well)
In order for a Pres to run the country he HAS to make deals.
Reagan made deals.
Reagan also projected a positive, optimistic message – something lacking among many conservatives.
Which brings me to the convention of States Wayne mentioned.
I don’t quite get the goal.
Perhaps it can be used as a lever against DC – If the state count gets close, the pols will have to react.
But to think that such a convention will solve the problems of the bloated Fed gov’t is naive.
Once there is a convention, the amendment(s) have to be agreed on
And then the amendment has to be carried out.
Say the convention passes a balanced budget amendment.
Now the Feds have to zero out a $500 billion deficit.
So Pres Warren simply cuts $350 billion from the defense budgets and raises cap gains and other taxes by $150 billion.
Will that warm your hearts?
As i see it, if you have enough pull to bring about a convention that passes amendment(s) you want, then you have the pull to elect congressmen and a Pres to get it done anyway.
The job is not to find some constitutional backdoor but to convince enough voters that it is in their interest to do what it takes to shrink the feds and that conservatives can be trusted to do it.
Mitch wrote: “As i see it, if you have enough pull to bring about a convention that passes amendment(s) you want, then you have the pull to elect congressmen and a Pres to get it done anyway.”
You sum up my thoughts on the convention of states movement exactly. Moreover, I also agree that there is no guarantee that a convention of states will solve anything. In fact, it almost guarantees that it won’t, as the convention is not a direct attack on the problem. Much better to elect the right people while throwing out the wrong ones. We have been doing this steadily since 2010. It takes time. Keep up the pressure and we will win in the end.
Mitch–
Good stuff.
I disagree ref– the Convention, but no matter. Have no delusions it would “solve everything.” At the very absolute minimum– put fear into the hearts of our overlord’s & masterminds.
The Federal government only exists because of the States, it works for us, not the other way around. Our “leaders” have fully conspired together, against the people, with absolute malice aforethought. And they have created an unaccountable Administrative State and none of those people can be gotten-at through the ballot box.
My contention is: our federal government is terminally beyond the point of being changed from within. They have accumulated so much power, they will never, ever, voluntarily restrain themselves.
They have systematically breached almost all the firewalls in the Constitution and there must be structural improvements to the foundation. Article 5 was written specifically to address the situation in which we find ourselves.
And, a Convention is the last, legal, non-violent methodology to restrain these people, after that– direct-action becomes existential.
–tangentially– does anyone think the 17th Amendment was a good idea? Could we all possibly agree, everything else aside, it needs to be repealed?
[direct-election of Federal senators]
It took a 100 years for the Statists to drag us to this point. 8 years of Reagan barely held the tide, and 8 years of Obama pretty much sealed our fate. Everything going forward is loss-mitigation.
We are 20 trillion in debt, with 200 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Those are real claims-on-resources and it’s impossible to grow your way out of those amounts.
Mitch S wrote: “In order for a Pres to run the country he HAS to make deals.”
True, but the art of the deal is the only strength that Trump seems to have, and making deals is only a minor tool in a president’s tool box. If making deals were the only thing to be done, then what would he have to trade away in order for us to have our rights protected, have our disputes properly resolved, and to have our government stay out of our way? Protecting our rights and our security should not require trade or sacrifice.
What was it that Benjamin Franklin said about trading rights for security? He made it clear that it is a bum deal.
We also have to ensure that Trump does not make any raw deals for us, such as the New Deal and the Great Society deal.
Protecting our rights from eminent domain abuse is against Trump’s stated preference. Getting the courts to properly settle disputes seems to be beyond his ability, getting government out of our way (such as Obamacare) has proved to not be a priority, and he certainly is not projecting a positive, optimistic message, despite his end-around of the press by using Twitter. Unlike Reagan, he is not capable of projecting a cogent argument for conservatism, since he has no idea what conservatism is.
Robert wrote: “Much better to elect the right people while throwing out the wrong ones.”
Correct. Unfortunately, Trump is not one of the right people, he was merely less wrong than the Democratic Party’s nominee.
In this thread, however, we have learned that if we suggest the right people for the job, we catch hell from those who insist that Trump can do no wrong (e.g. Cotour wrote: “anything he does I am pretty much behind“) and insist that the right people cannot do right.
Milton Freedman had an even better idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEVI3bmN8TI (1 minute)
“The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things.”
The right things include following the laws and the Constitution, and include changing the Constitution to clarify those areas where our rights are too easily violated and to clarify how to run the country better. There are, of course, many other right things.