Thread In Which We Discuss Trump Admin Policy & Give Trump Props

  • Thread starter Thread starter CFordUNC
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 295
  • Views: 4K
  • Politics 
ChileG said:
I will give Trump huge props if he lowers the deficit.
But I’m not going to give him props for saving $1B (I’ll just pretend Musk isn’t full of shit here) and then increasing the deficit by a trillion with his bullshit.

Let’s wait until we see the bottom line before we decide if it’s a W or an L. Announcements don’t mean shit.
Click to expand...
How about the macro level concept of creating DOGE? That’s a big win.
 
Huh? said:
Um, mandatory spending will increase as we age as a nation. $650B of the $850B in additional spending is on social security, Medicare and interest payments on the national debt. The first two are programs that Trump has taken off the table for cost reductions. Tariffs and tax cuts will make it harder to lower interest rates. Your solution is not a serious one, and $1B is both chump change and also conveniently impossible to prove.
Click to expand...
Chump change adds up over time. If it’s impossible to prove then it’s impossible to disprove as well.
 
Callatoroy said:
Chump change adds up over time. If it’s impossible to prove then it’s impossible to disprove as well.
Click to expand...
How much will that new prison in Cuba that will be three times larger than the largest prison in the US cost us to build, staff and maintain?
 
Callatoroy said:
They are literally offering 8 months of severance. Of course they are doing it to shrink the number of employees. He stated all along a goal was to shrink the size of the fed G’ment. And just about every country in the country uses that tactic but they sure as hell offer 8 months of severance and continued benefit. You would think this board might find some good in that but no acknowledgment so far.
Click to expand...
No, they have to work those 8 months but they are exempt from the return to office requirement. It’s not severance.
 
Callatoroy said:
They are literally offering 8 months of severance. Of course they are doing it to shrink the number of employees. He stated all along a goal was to shrink the size of the fed G’ment. And just about every country in the country uses that tactic but they sure as hell offer 8 months of severance and continued benefit. You would think this board might find some good in that but no acknowledgment so far.
Click to expand...
True, I would be cautious from what I've read about the possibilities of not receiving the severance.

I didn't say that the severance was bad. If it works out for the employees, it will be great. But someone has to do the job, is he simply going to hire at lower rates or are the jobs not going to get done?

It's really the way he handles everything, with no tact. It's always the look at me; I'm in charge approach. It's like he really needs the attention.

My company has had layoffs for the past three years. It finally came back to bite them, and they are having to fill many of the positions they vacated.

Sort of sucks as my company gives really good severance packages (depending on how long you have worked for the company, you get either 6 months or a year pay). I'm old enough that I would gladly accept a year pay and medical coverage.
 
Callatoroy said:
EO eliminating DEI from the military and fed G’ment has been a massive win. I realize this will get blasted by most on here but this is a great example of policy disagreements that is to be expected. So any discussion going forward about trump’s action should be about the policy of ending it vs keeping it. Not trump. He has already cast that stone.
Click to expand...
What do you see as negative in DEI?

My company has an outstanding DEI program. But it has nothing to do with hiring. Being international we already have representation from multiple companies. Our program is truly about appreciating diversity in culture, equality and opportunities, and inclusion of people from different cultures and backgrounds.

Like anything, I'm sure that there are some bad programs.

But the way he presents it; he clearly uses it to indicate to show distain for successful people who are not white and/or not male.
But that's how everything is. Tons of overblown hyperbola.
 
I guess I could squint and thank him for making things easier on future Democratic presidents. By centralizing power in the executive branch Trump is making the difficulty Democrats will have overcoming gerrymandering and the makeup of the senate less important.
 
UNCatTech said:
Really? That's the kind of hyperbola we have heard from trump for the last 4 years. Everything Biden did he responded like that. And you guys ate it up.
Click to expand...
Bingo. Ain’t no fun when the libs got the gun, huh, Pubs?
 
Lando said:
I guess I could squint and thank him for making things easier on future Democratic presidents. By centralizing power in the executive branch Trump is making the difficulty Democrats will have overcoming gerrymandering and the makeup of the senate less important.
Click to expand...
Yea, but they have to get elected first.

I'm surprised he hasn't signed an EO making it illegal to run as a democrat.
 
Not sure if this has made the rounds here, and this thread seems to be an appropriate spot:
The best, most cogent and elegantly simple explanation into the inexplicably destructive negotiating processes of the president,by Prof. David Honig of Indiana University.

“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn't another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”

— David Honig
 
Callatoroy said:
They are literally offering 8 months of severance. Of course they are doing it to shrink the number of employees. He stated all along a goal was to shrink the size of the fed G’ment. And just about every country in the country uses that tactic but they sure as hell offer 8 months of severance and continued benefit. You would think this board might find some good in that but no acknowledgment so far.
Click to expand...
Legally, where do the funds to pay the 8 months severance come from?

Has Congress authorized this money?

If you were a federal employee would you sign whatever separation/resignation agreement they present you and be confident that the Trump/Musk Administration would actually pay you?
 
Callatoroy said:
How about the macro level concept of creating DOGE? That’s a big win.
Click to expand...
What is DOGE?

It’s not a department of the US government.

Congress hasn’t created it or funded it.

Does DOGE legally have any authority to do anything?
 
superrific said:
I get what you're saying, but I don't think you agree with Trump's actual policy. He's just doing across the board tariffing. And he seems to be doing so because he thinks it will make other countries show him tribute.
Click to expand...
It has in some respects and put some countries on notice. Trump’s playbook seems to threaten across the board tariffs and then back up to make them selective before implementation.
 
UNCatTech said:
See @Ramrouser he's still taking shots at Biden.

Wasn't it trump that had to bail out the farmers after other countries stopped buying their crops? How was that a good deal again?
Click to expand...
The USDA distributed $12 billion in financial aid to agricultural producers most affected by China's retaliatory response to Trump’s tariffs. The USDA's aid came in the form of direct cash payments to producers of corn, cotton, soybeans, sorghum, wheat, dairy, and certain meat products.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top