The Trump Presidency – 2016

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I get its not as easy as Trump said it would be and Mexico is certainly not paying for it (and Winter has already come!) but I'm glad to see any progress with the wall.

Trump Wall Moves Forward With Firms Tapped for Designs - NBC News

And of course all of these prototypes will contain ways to prevent tunneling underneath.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

And of course all of these prototypes will contain ways to prevent tunneling underneath.

Sure people will find ways to cross/bypass the wall but better than no wall at all.

I suspect given enough time, money & technology, successful tunneling can be reduced quite a bit. I do think some sort of policy change, immigration reform (e.g. guest worker etc.) needs to be implemented also.

[Atocep]

Yeah it will be great when we run out of disaster aid, but have a wall that slows people crossing the border a little.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sure people will find ways to cross/bypass the wall but better than no wall at all.

I suspect given enough time, money & technology, successful tunneling can be reduced quite a bit. I do think some sort of policy change, immigration reform (e.g. guest worker etc.) needs to be implemented also.

You really think the cash albatross this will turn into will truly pay dividend while it potentially re-directs funds that are sorely needed for things like education, healthcare, infrastructure etc?

How about first focusing on the many illegals here who are actually helping the economy, rewarding those that are hard workers and good people looking for a better life and turn them into tax contributors.
Then taking some of that money targeted for the wall, going hard after the cartels in joint operations with the Mexican government. Legalizing Marijuana along the way to re-route millions of dollars spent on incarceration for non-violent drug offenders and infusing coffers with millions more through tax on sales. (Not the impact this will have on the opioid problem as well if MJ can be prescribed for pain by physicians)

Then institute immigration reform, again working with the Mexican government to allow easier work visa's for those that do not have criminal records and allow them a path to citizenship faster if they meet a strict, but fair criteria to be established, and so on. (This I agree with you on wholeheartedly)

Which plan do you think makes more sense economically for the USA both short and long term? A well thought out common sense plan or a impulsive, let's build a mega wall that will cost billions and take years to even make a dent in the problem, if ever. And not attacking you as we agree on the reform part 100%, but I just don't think the wall is a good solution be any stretch. If anything focus on known crossing hot spots more, maybe employ more drone surveillance, etc.

[JPhillips]

The eminent domain lawsuits will take a generation at least.

[JPhillips]

dola

OMG they're going to fuck up the debt ceiling and disaster relief. Apparently the current plan is to have the House pass disaster relief, have the Senate add the debt limit increase, then have the House pass it. No way that plan works.

[Atocep]

Ignoring the limited impact a wall would have, unless Trump wins a 2nd term any wall has zero chance of ever being completed and is nothing more than a waste of time, money, and resources.

I don't see any way someone else is in the white house in 2020 and we decide to keep moving forward on it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

You really think the cash albatross this will turn into will truly pay dividend while it potentially re-directs funds that are sorely needed for things like education, healthcare, infrastructure etc?

How about first focusing on the many illegals here who are actually helping the economy, rewarding those that are hard workers and good people looking for a better life and turn them into tax contributors.
Then taking some of that money targeted for the wall, going hard after the cartels in joint operations with the Mexican government. Legalizing Marijuana along the way to re-route millions of dollars spent on incarceration for non-violent drug offenders and infusing coffers with millions more through tax on sales. (Not the impact this will have on the opioid problem as well if MJ can be prescribed for pain by physicians)

Then institute immigration reform, again working with the Mexican government to allow easier work visa's for those that do not have criminal records and allow them a path to citizenship faster if they meet a strict, but fair criteria to be established, and so on. (This I agree with you on wholeheartedly)

Which plan do you think makes more sense economically for the USA both short and long term? A well thought out common sense plan or a impulsive, let's build a mega wall that will cost billions and take years to even make a dent in the problem, if ever. And not attacking you as we agree on the reform part 100%, but I just don't think the wall is a good solution be any stretch. If anything focus on known crossing hot spots more, maybe employ more drone surveillance, etc.

I actually think the wall has a greater chance of being built and than those suggested legislation/policies being passed, so let's get started on the wall and maybe the momentum gets other things done ... if not, we still have a 70B wall and annual maintenance of $170M.

Border Wall Could Cost 3 Times Estimates, Senate Democrats’ Report Says - The New York Times

I don't see it as either or, I see it as both wall and policy changes.

On using the funds to pay for more education and healthcare, sounds great in theory. Two questions - do you agree there is significant waste in education and healthcare? and do you think $70B will fix the problems? I think the problems are more systemic and it'll never be enough money.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Two questions - do you agree there is significant waste in education and healthcare? and do you think $70B will fix the problems? I think the problems are more systemic and it'll never be enough.

Absolutely no doubt on both and the first order of business is start trimming internal fat. I can't speak directly on education admin at the federal level, but I can absolutely talk about healthcare. CMS is a morass of ineptitude at times and could run much more effectively if it were leaner. Audit contracts are thrown out to multiple third party vendors that cross streams and step all over each other auditing health plans.

Policy is often set based on opinions/special interest pressure and I swear they have people whose soul function is to make regs as convoluted as possible. I have been in the healthcare insurance industry for 28 years and can unequivocally say, that healthcare would be so much more affordable, easier to administer and work more efficiently if it was streamlined. And by that I mean a base set of regulations that had to be followed and a more competent implementation of monitoring and incentivizing.

A real quick example of this is Medicare sequestration, or MPRS reductions to payments.

Currently a 2% reduction is taken from payment by traditional Medicare from all providers/hospitals and by Medicare HMO's for non-contracted providers/hospitals. The HMO's can decide whether or not to apply the 2% to providers that contract with them and CMS wording makes it interpretable either way. This 2% was given an initial period of enforcement, which has since been extended and there is no word on how long currently.

So, the effects of this mean insurance companies have to configure their systems to deduct this, providers have to configure their systems to credit it, insured's have no idea what the hell it means and CMS has to create an audit category for that, which involves more expense.

Simple solution, just cut the fucking Medicare fee schedule by 2% for whatever period of time. The end result is the same, Medicare saves money, insurance companies pay less, the providers gets their write off and the insured is not responsible for this amount. And this is just one example LOL.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Absolutely no doubt on both and the first order of business is start trimming internal fat..

If you want to reduce healthcare costs in the US its simple - (1) allow the government to negotiate against drug companies as a single entity without its hands tied, if you believe in the 'free market' then the government as an entity is entitled to be part of it and get leverage in the same way large insurers do, (2) allow a single payer system like the rest of the damn world does and get far more for its buck.

Then you can worry about everything else once you've saved the huge amounts from those two shaving little pieces of the edges would be good ... but theres no point doing that before addressing the elephant in the room.

PS - Even Mr. Trump admits that socialised single payer systems are more sensible than what America has (he said as much when he met with the Australian PM).

[tarcone]

Happy to see the oil companies profiting off the natural disaster. *sarcasm*

[Easy Mac]

no, no, it's because they had to shut down production. so they lost money. like how every movie loses money.

[tarcone]

You know what pisses me off even more? That you and me and regular hard working people that are anywhere from lower to upper middle class stepping up and donating money or blood or time or whatever.
But oil companies are profiting from this. What a load of crap. I guess X Billions of dollars isnt enough. I imagine there is a special place in Hell for oil company executives.

[Edward64]

I don't know enough about the oil company supply chain but I would not be so sure they are making a profit out of this. The oil industry pipelines, refineries etc. must have taken a hit and the oil companies "may" be trying to offset the losses but not necessarily trying to make a profit of the storm.

The reason why I said "may" be is the increase in fuel caused by up/downstream from them? Is it the gas stations independents marking up the prices, is the world jacking up prices because they know the US is going to be temporarily refining less etc.

I don't know, my guess is all of the above. Anyone here in the industry?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't know enough about the oil company supply chain but I would not be so sure they are making a profit out of this. The oil industry pipelines, refineries etc. must have taken a hit and the oil companies "may" be trying to offset the losses but not necessarily trying to make a profit of the storm.

The reason why I said "may" be is the increase in fuel caused by up/downstream from them? Is it the gas stations independents marking up the prices, is the world jacking up prices because they know the US is going to be temporarily refining less etc.

I don't know, my guess is all of the above. Anyone here in the industry?

It's all about refining capacity. A full 22% of US gasoline refining capacity is offline and it's going to be at least 2 weeks before it's back running at normal capacity. That will create a gap of supply for a while and the converse, a glut of oil that will be sitting on the sidelines not being refined. There's also a concern apparently that refiners won't rush to get back online and help drive prices up somewhat.

September gasoline futures are at the highest level and jumped 13.5% at the close Thursday. The highest in 2 years and October futures jumped nearly 8%.

Gasoline futures jump above $2, oil rallies amid Harvey-stoked shortages - MarketWatch

The sharp jump for gasoline comes as flooding from devastating weather system Harvey prompted several refineries offline.
“Taking into account reduced runs at a number of Texas and Louisiana refineries, S&P Global Platts estimates 4.1 million [barrels a day] of refinery capacity remains offline as of Wednesday night, nearly half of the U.S. Gulf Coast’s capacity and 22% of U.S. refining capacity,” Nicole Leonard, senior project consultant at S&P Global Platts Consulting, said late Wednesday.
Motiva Enterprises’ Port Arthur, Texas refinery, the nation’s largest, was shut Wednesday. The company said Thursday that it can’t provide any timeline for a restart, raising further concerns over a potential shortage of gasoline supplies.
Oil prices, meanwhile, finished higher for the first time in four sessions. They had been pressured by concerns U.S. refiners will stay shut and demand less oil, potentially leading to higher U.S. stockpiles and rekindling fears of a global supply glut.
“We see a base case of an average of 3 [million barrels a day] of refining capacity offline for the next two weeks. If imports and exports remain affected to the current degree over that time frame…the net result could be a build of up to 15 million barrels” in crude inventories, analysts at Cowen and Company wrote in a note Thursday.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't know enough about the oil company supply chain but I would not be so sure they are making a profit out of this. The oil industry pipelines, refineries etc. must have taken a hit and the oil companies "may" be trying to offset the losses but not necessarily trying to make a profit of the storm.

The reason why I said "may" be is the increase in fuel caused by up/downstream from them? Is it the gas stations independents marking up the prices, is the world jacking up prices because they know the US is going to be temporarily refining less etc.

I don't know, my guess is all of the above. Anyone here in the industry?

Little from column A, little from column B.

Gas stations are often not owned by the distributor, but rather franchised (kinda like Mickey D's). So price changes can depend on various factors. The franchisee's decisions play into it, the free market plays into it to a degree (gas stations in the same area may go up or down depending on their neighbors), and sometimes even state law is a factor.

In Wisconsin, gas is required to be sold at 6% over cost or 9% over wholesale, whichever is greater. That's intended to keep, say, Costco from selling gas at a loss to drive the competition out of business before they jack the price back up.

The other side of the coin is speculation, or what you referred to as 'the rest of the world.' OPEC and such can't unilaterally set high prices - if they say "okay light sweet crude is $150/barrel" and nobody buys it, then what they have is product they can't move.

If speculators see a profit opportunity, they might bid up futures contracts for oil, and that's where Exxon/Shell/etc see their increase.

[Easy Mac]

Around here every station has been following QT's lead. Twice in the last week they made 20 cent jumps. The other stations stayed until the next morning before following suit.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't know enough about the oil company supply chain but I would not be so sure they are making a profit out of this. The oil industry pipelines, refineries etc. must have taken a hit and the oil companies "may" be trying to offset the losses but not necessarily trying to make a profit of the storm.

The reason why I said "may" be is the increase in fuel caused by up/downstream from them? Is it the gas stations independents marking up the prices, is the world jacking up prices because they know the US is going to be temporarily refining less etc.

I don't know, my guess is all of the above. Anyone here in the industry?

Just follow the theme of this thread. Everything is a con

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Around here every station has been following QT's lead. Twice in the last week they made 20 cent jumps. The other stations stayed until the next morning before following suit.

I think gas has gone up about .50 or .60 cents as of last Thu (last time I filled up).

[Ben E Lou]

It appears that North Korea has tested a thermonuclear device.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

It appears that North Korea has tested a thermonuclear device.

Eagerly awaiting what our President has to say in 140 characters.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Eagerly awaiting what our President has to say in 140 characters.

Still doesn't understand his bully tactics won't work.

"South Korea is finding, as I have told them, that their talk of appeasement with North Korea will not work, they only understand one thing!"

[digamma]

Does it really matter at this point what he says? I mean a month ago he drew a line in the sand and NK jumped across it.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by digamma

Does it really matter at this point what he says? I mean a month ago he drew a line in the sand and NK jumped across it.

North Korea gonna North Korea

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by digamma

Does it really matter at this point what he says? I mean a month ago he drew a line in the sand and NK jumped across it.

They skipped across it carrying flashing neon signs and built a house on the other side.

[Vince, Pt. II]

I'm just trying to think of a best-case scenario for how this ends up playing out, and I've got nothing. And that's even before considering the person in charge.

[JPhillips]

The answer is what it has been all along, deterrence. It's not satisfying in a we win kind of way, but it will probably work and it's the only path that doesn't end with lots of deaths.

Trump, unfortunately, isn't the guy to pull this off but Mattis at least seems to understand the obvious, so maybe he can make sure we muddle through.

edit: Trump needs to lay off the belligerent bluffing. Now he's threatening to cut off all trade with countries that trade with NK. We aren't going to embargo China and everyone involved knows it.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The answer is what it has been all along, deterrence. It's not satisfying in a we win kind of way, but it will probably work and it's the only path that doesn't end with lots of deaths.

Trump, unfortunately, isn't the guy to pull this off but Mattis at least seems to understand the obvious, so maybe he can make sure we muddle through.

edit: Trump needs to lay off the belligerent bluffing. Now he's threatening to cut off all trade with countries that trade with NK. We aren't going to embargo China and everyone involved knows it.

His supporters are eating it up and that's all that matters to him.

[PilotMan]

Trump is the guy who killed it in single player and then talked a bunch of shit in multi player, got his ass handed to him and now feels cheated.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

edit: Trump needs to lay off the belligerent bluffing. Now he's threatening to cut off all trade with countries that trade with NK. We aren't going to embargo China and everyone involved knows it.

Trump just doesn't seem to be the type of guy to bluff about this.

This, of course, is on the highest order of chicken and consequences are significant, but I bet there's going to be some significant action/escalation in the next 3 years unless China reigns in NK or the crazy kid backs down.

(If anything, to distract from domestic problems/investigations).

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Trump just doesn't seem to be the type of guy to bluff about this.

Whether its bluffing or not, Trump seems like the type of guy to randomly say shit on twitter based on nothing with no effort or intent to follow through if its not going to make him popular. Hasn't he already gotten caught "bluffing" with NK by making bold statements already? Fire and Fury?

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Trump just doesn't seem to be the type of guy to bluff about this.

Fortunately, he also seems to be the sort to bluster about something and get distracted by squirrels.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Trump just doesn't seem to be the type of guy to bluff about this.

He bluffs all the time. Happens when one doesn't know the definition of truth

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Trump just doesn't seem to be the type of guy to bluff about this.

We have very different interpretations of Trump's behavior.

Last year we exported 116 billion to China and imported 463 billion. That doesn't include all of the U.S. companies that do business in China. We aren't going to cut that off. He's not even stupid enough to plunge us into a depression and have that be his legacy.

[Edward64]

Yes, he is a lot of bluster but he is unpredictable and does not follow norms of a typical Dem/Rep president. Chances for miscalculation & misinterpretation (on both sides are relatively high).

If there is one presidency in the past 25 years, its the Trump presidency where the highest chance of something militarily will happen.

[Groundhog]

Although I've said that I don't see NK striking first, all bets are off if an oil embargo is put in place. I don't see anything good coming from that.

I'm really interested to see what role Russia takes going forward, because it feels like this might be the event that sees them start to play their hand. I think the history books are going to have a whole lot to say about Russia's role in the current US' political shitstorm.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Radii

Whether its bluffing or not, Trump seems like the type of guy to randomly say shit on twitter based on nothing with no effort or intent to follow through if its not going to make him popular. Hasn't he already gotten caught "bluffing" with NK by making bold statements already? Fire and Fury?

I think he gave himself more of wiggle room for interpretation than Obama's red line.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Radii

Whether its bluffing or not, Trump seems like the type of guy to randomly say shit on twitter based on nothing with no effort or intent to follow through if its not going to make him popular. Hasn't he already gotten caught "bluffing" with NK by making bold statements already? Fire and Fury?

Yeah, we can argue over the semantics of whether he's "bluffing." (I mean Ian my world, using the word "bluffing" would imply that there was actual thought and strategy to his "fire and fury" foolishness as opposed to him just talking out of his butt.) But the reality is that he has probably already reached the point where other foreign leaders are ignoring his threats and tweets. NK certainly has.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The answer is what it has been all along, deterrence. It's not satisfying in a we win kind of way, but it will probably work and it's the only path that doesn't end with lots of deaths.

Trump, unfortunately, isn't the guy to pull this off but Mattis at least seems to understand the obvious, so maybe he can make sure we muddle through.

Nope.

"Any threat to the United States or its territories including Guam or our allies will be met with a massive military response — a response both effective and overwhelming," he added.

North Korea Says It Has Tested Hydrogen Bomb That Can Fit on ICBM - NBC News

[JPhillips]

Part of deterrence is a credible threat of annihilation. Mattis has also made it clear that diplomacy is always available and always the best option.

Trump, on the other hand, wants to show who's boss so people will say he's a winner.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Nope.[/url]

There's a certain amount of "this is the message the President wants promulgated" and there's only so much he can do to publicly mitigate that without drawing Trump's ire at being "managed."

That said, the reality is? Any military response would be overwhelming, effective, and Pyhrric beyond all meaning.

Even assuming shite incoming detection capabilities on North Korea's part, I don't see China completely abandoning them, and if you think China would blithely sit back following a retaliatory (or pre-emptive) nuclear detonation on their borders, you might wish to re-examine that belief.

Any conventional response would result in the whole can of whoopass being opened on Seoul.

I mean, North Korea as an extant polity would have its days numbered, absolutely.

And you'd like to think Kim is rational enough to realize that.

But the other side of the M.A.D. coin is that it only works if both sides understand and believe what the other is capable of. For all their bluster, I do think North Korea knows what the United States is capable of.

Trump's rhetoric, on the other hand, suggests that he doesn't understand "costs" from a military perspective. I'm not just talking about North Korea, either. There's his bluster about a secret plan to destroy ISIS and knowing more than the generals about how to do it. There's his bluster about Iran (which I think in large part is bound up in "this is a thing Obama did and I need to completely eradicate his legacy regardless of merit because he was mean to me at the White House press dinner"). There's North Korea. There's his rhetoric regarding Venezuela and military options. There's the allegation that he asked words to the effect of "why even have a nuclear arsenal if we can't use it whenever we feel like it?"

And so on.

And that's dangerous in the context of M.A.D. Because if one side understands the ramifications and the other doesn't, that unbalances the nuclear deterrent.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

OMG they're going to fuck up the debt ceiling and disaster relief. Apparently the current plan is to have the House pass disaster relief, have the Senate add the debt limit increase, then have the House pass it. No way that plan works.

Yep.

Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC), the chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee, on Monday warned Republican leaders against tying disaster relief funding for Hurricane Harvey to legislation raising the debt ceiling.

[stevew]

Surely I couldn't have been the only one confused by Reality Winner being an actual person's name.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by stevew

Surely I couldn't have been the only one confused by Reality Winner being an actual person's name.

welcome to three months ago: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...&id=1123680038

[NobodyHere]

So in regards to Trump rescinding DACA.

Is there no path for the people affected to become legal immigrants or citizens?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So in regards to Trump rescinding DACA.

Is there no path for the people affected to become legal immigrants or citizens?

I've got a guy working for me that fell under DACA. He took it one step further and after spending $20,000 on a lawyer, he has a two year visa.

I should also add that he is married to an American citizen. Sounds like he needs to be married for three years after getting his visa before he can apply for citizenship. Wait.... his visa is only for two years? With DACA rescinded, he may not be eligible to get his visa extended.

[Shkspr]

Not unless Congress makes one in the next six months.
DACA never changed the legal status of citizens, just "deferred action" on their illegal status. With that protection gone, the vast majority fall under the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which kicks anyone illegally here a year or more out of the country for a decade. As far as Congress passing legislation to amnesty Dreamers goes, what do YOU think the odds are that a Republican Congress will sign into law the citizenship of 800,000 new citizens who will almost certainly vote Democrat?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

As far as Congress passing legislation to amnesty Dreamers goes, what do YOU think the odds are that a Republican Congress will sign into law the citizenship of 800,000 new citizens who will almost certainly vote Democrat?

Also why they won't ever give D.C. the two Senators and 1 Representative it deserves.

[JPhillips]

Or Puerto Rican statehood.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Or Puerto Rican statehood.

Shouldn't Puerto Ricans want statehood first?