The First 100 days

[Garmel]

 

[Clean]

I heard on the radio that the CBO estimates the shutdown cost the government over $11 billion. Almost twice the 5.7 Trump is asking for the wall.

Of course, we knew this isn't about money. It's about winning at any cost.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I heard on the radio that the CBO estimates the shutdown cost the government over $11 billion. Almost twice the 5.7 Trump is asking for the wall.

Of course, we knew this isn't about money. It's about winning at any cost.

Pretty dumb move by Trump to shut down the government, huh? A bit of chopping off your nose to spite your face moment for him.

 

[Musburger1]

Pretty dumb move by Trump to shut down the government, huh? A bit of chopping off your nose to spite your face moment for him.

No problem. Trump and team are well on their way of getting back all of that money and much more. Venezuela. Let’s steal the oil!

 

[huisache]

Wrong, the population living in poverty is over 20%. In addition, the social security system is severely flawed and unsustainable. The medical services are decent but the waiting times are terrible, but don't let the facts intrude on your socialist fantasy.

The literacy rate there is higher than ours and a goodly portion of the populace speaks english as well as Spanish. The poverty rate should be compared to the rest of Central America

And their army doesn’t exist so it hasn’t murdered any peasants like our client states do.

And I have run my own businesses for most of my life, so knock off the socialist krap

 

[mchammer]

The Curious Case of Costa Rica: Can an Outlier Sustain its Success? | Harvard International Review

 

[mchammer]

Why getting rid of Costa Rica's army 70 years ago has been such a success

 

[iatrogenic]

The literacy rate there is higher than ours and a goodly portion of the populace speaks english as well as Spanish. The poverty rate should be compared to the rest of Central America

And their army doesn’t exist so it hasn’t murdered any peasants like our client states do.

And I have run my own businesses for most of my life, so knock off the socialist krap

Compared to their neighbors and Detroit they're Utopia, but 20% of their population still lives in poverty, the health care system is slow to serve its patients, and the government employees steal money from the social security system.

It is the best of central America, but all you have to do is look at the "houses" with corrugated tin roofs on your way to the Marriott in Los Suenos to realize they still have serious problems. Thankfully the Nicas are available to do work for the Ticos when they are not being shot for squatting on Tico land. Otherwise, nothing would get built or cleaned in Utopia.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I heard on the radio that the CBO estimates the shutdown cost the government over $11 billion.

How does a shutdown cost the government more than if they were operating as normal?

 

[horninchicago]

How does a shutdown cost the government more than if they were operating as normal?

Supposedly the CBO is non-partisan, but I have never understood that. This people have certain views. They work for the Gubment. Their friends likely work for the Gubment. Non-Partisan? Yeah, right. There is no chance in hell they are come out and say anything other than what they spewed yesterday.

Kudlow and the WH disputed the findings saying there is no permanent damage to the economy and it isn't a switch that gets flipped.

kudlow-cbo-shutdown-economic-damage-1131269

 

[Mr. Deez]

Bull. ****. Study the US motivation for entering WW1. There was no interest for the US to enter, except for Colonel House was going to lose his money in England if they lost. Good thing he had the ear of Wilson

Entering WWI was a very questionable move by the United States and the United Kingdom. The problem with guys like you and Ron Paul is that you'll take an anecdote that arguably went badly in retrospect and use that to justify essentially not having a foreign policy or taking a leadership role. That's like getting in a car accident one day and using that as a reason to never drive a car again. Neocons do the same thing in reverse. They will point to anecdotes of interventions that went well and use that to justify all interventions.

The decision to fight or intervent in a war is complicated one, and there's nuance to it. Sometimes it's a good idea. Sometimes it's a bad idea. You have to look at the merits of each one.

Then study the effect Wilson had on the Versaille Treaty. You could actually say Wilson set Europe up for fascism and Nazism.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't have entered the war. That's a separate issue. This only demonstrates that Wilson was probably the worst President in history and that the Versailles Treaty was ****. It was a needlessly antagonistic treaty that nobody had the balls to enforce, and everybody knew it at the time it was made. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a right way to handle the situation. There was. The be Allies were too stupid to do it.

WW2 happened because of WW1 which happened because of national rivalry due to government economic intervention (at least a piece).

I agree that was a piece, but there were deeper issues that went beyond money in both wars. Germany wanted territorial gains and wanted its people (who were spread out in Europe) under a unified Reich. That piece was going to be present regardless of if the US had entered WWI. I'm not saying WWI had no impact on WWII. Of course it did. I'm saying that there was a fundamental issue that was bigger than the national economic rivalry.

Plus, the Bolsheviks never take over Russia without the US entering WW1. American entry into that war kept it going. That war ends a year earlier without the US involvement. That means Czar gets out of the war and is able to deal with Russian unrest better.

This is the most speculative BS I have ever heard. If the US had not entered the war, it may have ended sooner - with Germany winning. It's not likely that the Tsar would have had more power and leverage after losing a war rather than winning one.

The US excused much violence in its rivalry with the USSR, but what is never said is that the US had a hand in the creation of the USSR.

I'm sure you can find some American somewhere who helped create the USSR, but the idea that there was a general American push for the Bolsheviks is an absurd conspiracy theory.

Then FDR planned much of his New Deal on what Stalin was doing.

Any time a country pushes for an expansion of government regulation, this could be said.

No Deez. The problem with the 20 century wasn't too little government intervention in the world, but too much.

The 20th century saw the United States become the strongest military and economic power in the world. Along with that, we saw an enormous reduction in poverty in the US and worldwide and massive increases in the standard of living, and when the US was at its strongest (post-WWII), we had some of the most peaceful times in the history of civilization. I don't see much of a problem with the 20th century.

 

[Htown77]

The decision to fight or intervent in a war is complicated one, and there's nuance to it. Sometimes it's a good idea. Sometimes it's a bad idea. You have to look at the merits of each one.

I agree with this. I am more in favor of non-intervention, however, I agree that every conflict or potential conflict must be viewed on its own merits. I am also partial to intervening in the western hemisphere. I actually think in involvement Venzelua to some extent could be a good thing. Getting rid of the current regime would be good. Weakening Cuba by taking out their most important ally would be huge. My question is, what do we have in place to replace the current regime? We know little about Juan Guaido, and I have not seen anything to indicate he would not just be a pro-US Maduro. I am for intervention if we have a good plan in my place to establish a real democracy. Otherwise, I am cautious on such intervention. Maduro needs to go, but replacing him with another thug would not achieve anything.

and when the US was at its strongest (post-WWII), we had some of the most peacefultimes in the history of civilization.

@Mr. Deez we have already debated a lot of your post before, and I am going to avoid wasting our time since we already know each other’s opinions. I will respond to one point. Between Korea, Vietnam, the US-Soviet wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East, post world war 2 has not been the most peaceful of times. I agree there have been no major world wars, but I would not say it has been extremely peaceful either.

One could argue from the Franco-Prussian War until World War 1 was a relatively peaceful period, although that period still includes the Boer Wars and other colonial conflicts, the Spanish-American War and the Russo-Japanese War.

 

[Monahorns]

Entering WWI was a very questionable move by the United States and the United Kingdom. The problem with guys like you and Ron Paul is that you'll take an anecdote that arguably went badly in retrospect and use that to justify essentially not having a foreign policy or taking a leadership role. That's like getting in a car accident one day and using that as a reason to never drive a car again. Neocons do the same thing in reverse. They will point to anecdotes of interventions that went well and use that to justify all interventions.

The decision to fight or intervent in a war is complicated one, and there's nuance to it. Sometimes it's a good idea. Sometimes it's a bad idea. You have to look at the merits of each one.

Yeah, I agree that is the main counter argument for the Libertarian/Ron Paul criticisms of foreign policy. There is a bit of hindsight is 20/20 stuff going on there.

However, I bring up the Libertarian viewpoint for 2 reasons 1) the majority viewpoint today is for all war at all time and it is important to at least show that it isn't the only way to think, 2) we should be able to learn from history and that means pointing out where decisions in the past went bad so that we can make different sorts of decisions today.

For example, WW1 was a bit of a watershed moment in the US. Until that time, the US had been more faithful to the founding idea of not allowing ourselves to become snared in foreign entanglements. From WW1 onward there hasn't been a case we the US has decided to not become entangled. That has played a part in some bad things happening over the years.

I agree that was a piece, but there were deeper issues that went beyond money in both wars. Germany wanted territorial gains and wanted its people (who were spread out in Europe) under a unified Reich. That piece was going to be present regardless of if the US had entered WWI. I'm not saying WWI had no impact on WWII. Of course it did. I'm saying that there was a fundamental issue that was bigger than the national economic rivalry.

The only difference I have is that I think the unification of "all Germans" under one Reich was due to the national economic rivalry and mercantilism. They were 2 pieces of the same ideology.

This is the most speculative BS I have ever heard. If the US had not entered the war, it may have ended sooner - with Germany winning. It's not likely that the Tsar would have had more power and leverage after losing a war rather than winning one.

This is where studying Russian and Soviet history is a beneficial. The Russian people did not want to be in the war. Czar Nicholas entering the war was basically the feather that broke the camel's back. They saw it as his war and they were forced into it. One of the major promises of the Bolsheviks was to get out of WW1. Which they did, and even gave over much land to Germany from their Empire as a part of their treaty.

It isn't very speculative to believe the war ends sooner if the US doesn't enter. People wrote about it at the time and it was a commonly held view. Whether Germany wins or not, ending the war sooner would have ended the Russian Revolutionaries window of opportunity. I mean the Bolsheviks took over while the Russian army was in the middle of the war. The revolution was completed with a very small force with very little resources. It would have had very little chance of succeeding in a peace time situation. They were a pretty laughable group really. What I meant about "had a hand" in the creating the USSR is what I am talking about above. No conspiracy theory just unintended consequences of war.

Any time a country pushes for an expansion of government regulation, this could be said.

No. Not all what I mean. I specifically meant that FDR's brain trust traveling to the USSR in the 20s, met Stalin, and tried to implement the same things in the US. Communal farms, price fixing, etc was all straight out of Stalin's economic policy. The only thing he didn't do was nationalize all industry. He just tried to nationalize farming and electrical power. He totally failed on farming and was mostly successful with electrical power.

The 20th century saw the United States become the strongest military and economic power in the world. Along with that, we saw an enormous reduction in poverty in the US and worldwide and massive increases in the standard of living, and when the US was at its strongest (post-WWII), we had some of the most peaceful times in the history of civilization. I don't see much of a problem with the 20th century.

The US of course rose to a global power during last century. I have no qualms about that. However, poverty didn't decrease because of the increase of government. The 19th century actually had more economic growth and more consistently. That trend thankfully continued in the 20th but it wasn't as result of the US becoming a global power or because of huge bureaucracies being created in the government. In fact if you look at economic analysis post WW2, the picture isn't as rosy as most describe. From 1914-1945 the Western world had destroyed a huge amount of property and killed millions of people. Therefore, afterward you would expect there to be a dividend from peace. More butter less bullets means wealth building in general. But the Keynesian economic management of the economy since then has led to stagnation for the most part.

Income tax. Central banking caused inflation. Weak money. Regulatory capture.

All these things have left the working class in 2019 with big problems. Most politicians and celebrity economists claim the problems are capitalism, too much trade, and too much freedom. But it's the things I list above don't produce freedom and aren't capitalism. They are the act of government. The 20th Century was the century of the rise of big government.

 

[Monahorns]

Htown77, what leads you to believe the US government would have a plan which would be beneficial to Venezuela?

The bigger question to me is, why should American taxpayers pay to fix Venezuela? We should all be free to donate to service organizations that can help serve and rebuild, but why extract more money out of American taxpayers? Let's work on the debt a little before we go looking for more foreign governments to pour money into.


Also, good point about wars post-WW2. Even in the last 20 years, the US has been at war for 17 of them.

 

[Htown77]

I support the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary. Keeping the eastern hemisphere out of the western hemisphere and keeping friendly regimes in power in the western hemisphere is of the highest importance for US security. Getting a friendly regime again in Cuba would solve a lot of problems. Simply removing Cuba's source of oil and biggest ally would be huge for that goal. I agree that I am not sure the US could implement proper regime change in Venezuela. However, yes, an anti-Cuba and friendly regime in Venezuela would be extremely beneficial and worthwhile for the US. It is one of the few places foreign spending/aid would actually be worthwhile.

I believe aid to build up strong, friendly countries in the western hemisphere is good. I believe pouring money into places like Vietnam or Afghanistan in the eastern hemisphere is a massive, massive waste.

 

[Garmel]

Meanwhile, the real corruption that was occurring during the 2016 election continues to be ignored by the MSM. New details of 2016 meeting with Trump dossier author conflict with Dems’ timeline

 

[Seattle Husker]

George Conway, husband of Kellyanne Conway and former Solicitor General is fired up this morning about Trump.




Imagine the fallout if Trump ever pushed Kellyanne out of the WH. That might be more impactful than an unfavorable Anne Coulter tweet.

 

[Monahorns]

Promoting friendship and prosperity in the Western Hemisphere should be a priority.

But think about history. What is the history of US/Cuban relations. US intervention in Cuba was not considered a positive factor prior to Castro. The US "freed" Cuba from their Spanish oppressors. Then we supported a banana republic dictator whose rule led to Communist revolution.

That doesn't make the US responsible for Castro. But it does show the limitation of US intervention truly helping other countries.

 

[Joe Fan]

that's what she said

 

[Garmel]

George Conway, husband of Kellyanne Conway and former Solicitor General is fired up this morning about Trump.




Imagine the fallout if Trump ever pushed Kellyanne out of the WH. That might be more impactful than an unfavorable Anne Coulter tweet.

Someone needs to ask poor George how often he's been right since challenging Trump on nearly everything.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Surprise! Trump's appointed Director of National Intelligence (Dan Coats) and new CIA Director Gina Haspell told Congress it is dangerous to reduce pressure on ISIS.

“The group will exploit any reduction in [counterterrorism] pressure to strengthen its clandestine presence and accelerate rebuilding key capabilities, such as media production and external operations,” the report states.
The report also warned that ISIS is still likely to try to attack the United States.

“ISIS very likely will continue to pursue external attacks from Iraq and Syria against regional and Western adversaries, including the United States,” it said.

Oh...this annual report lists the threats to our national security. Any guesses where they ranked our Southern border of migrants from Latin America? Last year it fell into the bottom half of the top 10 and made it all the way up to page 14 of a 35 page report.

 

[Garmel]

Surprise! Trump's appointed Director of National Intelligence (Dan Coats) and new CIA Director Gina Haspell told Congress it is dangerous to reduce pressure on ISIS.



Oh...this annual report lists the threats to our national security. Any guesses where they ranked our Southern border of migrants from Latin America? Last year it fell into the bottom half of the top 10 and made it all the way up to page 14 of a 35 page report.

This fits in what I said in the other thread. It's possible that Trump might be wrong but how many times has he gone against "conventional wisdom" and been correct? Quite a few times I might add. Since the election Trump has been right much more often than his detractors.

 

[horninchicago]

Funny to see liberals up in arms over troop withdrawals. They would have said in the past that those saying a troop withdrawal is bad are just a part of the evil Military Industrial Complex.

 

[Garmel]

Funny to see liberals up in arms over troop withdrawals. They would have said in the past that those saying a troop withdrawal is bad are just a part of the evil Military Industrial Complex.

There is also a base in Iraq. The left is acting as if all of our presence in the ME is gone. If Trump is wrong we can always increase the amount of troops again.

 

[Seattle Husker]

There is also a base in Iraq. The left is acting as if all of our presence in the ME is gone. If Trump is wrong we can always increase the amount of troops again.

What about the allies that are wiped out? Are we going to replace the Kurds too?

 

[Garmel]

What about the allies that are wiped out? Are we going to replace the Kurds too?

I'm not sure the Kurds are going to be wiped out. Besides, if their existence does depend on us being there, how long do we stay there then? We can't stay there forever.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I'm not sure the Kurds are going to be wiped out. Besides, if their existence does depend on us being there, how long do we stay there then? We can't stay there forever.

They are our army right now. They are the reason we only have 2k soldiers on the ground in Syria. We move out and Turkey will wipe them out. We know they are amassing troops and resources on the Syria border right now prompting Trump to warn them. We KNOW this is going to happen.

 

[Garmel]

They are our army right now. They are the reason we only have 2k soldiers on the ground in Syria. We move out and Turkey will wipe them out. We know they are amassing troops and resources on the Syria border right now prompting Trump to warn them. We KNOW this is going to happen.

Let's assume you're correct. How long do we protect them?

 

[Garmel]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a Ron Paul type of person when it comes to defense but I'm tired of getting ourselves mired in stalemates in the ME. If someone could give me a REASONABLE goal for Syria I'd say we should stick there. All I'm seeing now is Vietnam on a smaller scale.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Let's assume you're correct. How long do we protect them?

They've been pivotal in our fight against ISIS, a foe we all used to agree was bad. They deserve better than being treated as lambs for slaughter. I think they deserve their own country. That may be the only way to protect them.