[jjbrr]

 barmar, on 2018-January-30, 09:54, said:

Aren't some of these same companies also doing big layoffs at the same time? I think AT&T, for instance.

So some employees are getting bonuses, others are getting pink slips.

that's just, like, your filter of reality, man

[Al_U_Card]

 kenberg, on 2018-January-29, 21:29, said:

I'm thinking we could get it to pay for itself by installing slot machines from one end to the other. Roulette wheels at the top, crap games in little inlets along the base. I am still working on plans for entertainment, but maybe Russian Folk Dancing would work.

My nomination for POTY.

[RedSpawn]

 kenberg, on 2018-January-29, 21:29, said:

I'm thinking we could get it to pay for itself by installing slot machines from one end to the other. Roulette wheels at the top, crap games in little inlets along the base. I am still working on plans for entertainment, but maybe Russian Folk Dancing would work.

I'm okay with this recommendation as long as President Trump can't influence or override the internal controls of the cash management or treasury functions.

His track record with casinos isn't the stuff of legend. . .

[y66]

Was that not tedious?

BTW, what happened to all the jobs Trump promised?

[Winstonm]

If you were snoozing, you probably missed the most chilling line in the history of U.S. presidential speeches of any kind - the call for Congress to give Fredo Putin-like powers:

Quote

“Tonight, I call on the congress to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers—and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.”

And who gets to make the decision if Mueller or an FBI agent fails the American people? Why, Fredo, of course. Can a call for action look anymore like an attempt to replicate Putin's Russia?

[PassedOut]

When untethered to facts, a good speech writer can make things sound pretty good. But -- Fact checking the 2018 State of the Union address

Quote

• There have been about 1.8 million jobs created since January 2017, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s the slowest gain in jobs since 2010, which indicates how well job growth was going before Trump took office.
  
• Wages have been on an upward trend since 2014, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and in fact their growth slowed during the first year of Trump’s presidency.
  
• New jobless claims rose to 233,000, the lowest since December. So it’s a six-week low, not a 45-year low.
  
• In the stock market, Trump even falls short in comparison to Barack Obama’s first year. The S&P 500 gained about 33.3 percent from inauguration through Jan. 29 under Obama, compared with 25.5 percent under Trump.
  
• Trump’s tax cut, according to Treasury Department data, is nearly 0.9 percent of GDP — compared to 2.89 percent of GDP for Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut. Trump’s tax cut is only the eighth-largest — and is even smaller than two of Barack Obama’s tax cuts.
  
• Research by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University shows that regulatory restrictions actually grew during Trump’s first year, but at a much slower pace than other presidents in their first year.

And so on...

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2018-January-31, 07:49, said:

Was that not tedious?

BTW, what happened to all the jobs Trump promised?

At about 10:20 Becky and I had each nodded off a couple of times and I suggested we give it up and go to bed. Tedious yes. And awful. Trump would say one sentence. This would be greeted by a staning oveation. Then one more sentence. One more standing ovation. And repeat. And repeat. State of the Union speeches are rarely inspiring but this was awful.

Not that there was no content. But that was awful also. I have to head out for a bit , maybe more later, but this was dreadful.

[andrei]

 PassedOut, on 2018-January-31, 08:46, said:

When untethered to facts, a good speech writer can make things sound pretty good. But -- Fact checking the 2018 State of the Union address

Quote

In the stock market, Trump even falls short in comparison to Barack Obama’s first year. The S&P 500 gained about 33.3 percent from inauguration through Jan. 29 under Obama, compared with 25.5 percent under Trump.
Trump’s tax cut, according to Treasury Department data, is nearly 0.9 percent of GDP — compared to 2.89 percent of GDP for Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut.

And so on...

Bwaaaahaaaahaaaaa ...

You guys fall for this? Frightening.


Under Obama debt increased 68%, under GW Bush debt increased 101%.
Thus GW Bush added more trillions to the debt than Obama.

And Roosevelt added more than 1000% to the debt, OMG.

[jjbrr]

 kenberg, on 2018-January-31, 09:54, said:

At about 10:20 Becky and I had each nodded off a couple of times and I suggested we give it up and go to bed. Tedious yes. And awful. Trump would say one sentence. This would be greeted by a staning oveation. Then one more sentence. One more standing ovation. And repeat. And repeat. State of the Union speeches are rarely inspiring but this was awful.

Not that there was no content. But that was awful also. I have to head out for a bit , maybe more later, but this was dreadful.

Can't even make this stuff up.

Quote

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

The #SOTU speech is really boring, slow, lethargic - very hard to watch!
7:05 PM - 12 Jan 2016

[jjbrr]

And for good measure:

Quote

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Why does @BarackObama always have to rely on teleprompters?
1:39 PM · Mar 19, 2012

[Winstonm]

And for better measure:

Quote

FBI Director Christopher Wray reportedly told the White House he does not support the controversial GOP memo’s release because it contains “inaccurate information and paints a false narrative,” according to Bloomberg.

"....inaccurate information and paints a false narrative." Wouldn't that be false news?

But, or course, Fredo said this about that particular false news:

Quote

President Trump Fredo Corleone was overheard Tuesday night telling a Republican lawmaker that he is “100 percent” behind the memo’s release after his State of the Union address.

Yeah, but it's MY false news.

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2018-January-31, 08:31, said:

If you were snoozing, you probably missed the most chilling line in the history of U.S. presidential speeches of any kind - the call for Congress to give Fredo Putin-like powers:

How about when he said we should stop supporting countries that were against our decision to recognize Jerusalem, saying that we shouldn't support our enemies? Are allies really expected to agree on everything?

[WellSpyder]

 barmar, on 2018-January-31, 11:12, said:

Are allies really expected to agree on everything?

Well, yes and no.

The US's allies are expected to agree with the US on everything, but the US isn't expected to agree with its allies on everything.

[andrei]

 Winstonm, on 2018-January-31, 10:46, said:

"....inaccurate information and paints a false narrative." Wouldn't that be false news?

Bloomberg said:

FBI Director Christopher Wray told the White House he opposes release of a classified Republican memo alleging bias at the FBI and Justice Department because it contains inaccurate information and paints a false narrative, according to a person familiar with the matter.

A person familiar with the matter, LOL.
Is this the same person who knew that Rex Tillerson would be out as SoS 2 month ago?

[Winstonm]

9 months and counting. Tick-tock, tick-tock...

Quote

Trey Gowdy Won't Seek Re-Election To Congress

Tick-tock, tick-tock...

[Winstonm]

This comes from the New York Post, hardly a bastion of liberalism - though obviously not as reliable as Breitbart or Alex Jones.

Quote

Top Justice Department officials traveled to the White House on Monday in a last-ditch effort to warn Chief of Staff John Kelly about the dangers of releasing a Republican-written classified memo alleging surveillance abuses by the FBI, according to a report. The revelation in the Washington Post that FBI Director Christopher Wray and deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made a last-minute plea to Kelly came just before Trump was heard on an open mic after his State of the Union address Tuesday evening saying he’s “100 percent” behind making the memo public. Wray and Rosenstein appealed to Kelly to relate to the president that the four-page memo could damage national security and set a dangerous ..

[jjbrr]

 Winstonm, on 2018-January-31, 12:01, said:

9 months and counting. Tick-tock, tick-tock...


Tick-tock, tick-tock...

This doesn't seem good to me. One possible theory is that Gowdy might replace Sessions or Rosenstein.

[Winstonm]

 jjbrr, on 2018-January-31, 12:07, said:

This doesn't seem good to me. One possible theory is that Gowdy might replace Sessions or Rosenstein.

If it is after the midterms, it shouldn't matter. Real Clear Politics has generic Democrats up 8 points over Republican for Congressional seats.

[y66]

Paul Krugman's take on Trump's infrastructure plan:

Quote

Trump’s main goal in the State of the Union speech was to sound serious and presidential. Did he succeed? I don’t think so – I found the fear-mongering over immigrant crime disgusting. But mostly I don’t care. I’ve never seen much merit in the theater-criticism school of political punditry.

What matters is the substance, of which, let’s be honest, there usually isn’t much in a SOTU. Still, Trump was trying to sound as if he was offering serious new policy initiatives, notably on infrastructure.

So let’s be clear: while we desperately need new investment in public capital, Trump’s proposal – Trumpfrastructure? – isn’t remotely serious. At best, it would be a trivial sum of money pretending to be something big. At worst, it would amount to an orgy of crony capitalism, privatizing public assets while generating little new investment.

So, what’s being sold here? Trump gave a big number, $1.5 trillion. But a leaked draft of the plan says that it will involve only $200 billion of federal money. The rest is supposed to be induced spending from private investors. That’s quite a trick. How does it work?

The answer is, basically, that it doesn’t. Private investors won’t spend on public infrastructure unless guaranteed a return. This only works if they’re given ownership, and the ability to collect future revenue from the public.

First point: lots of infrastructure just can’t work that way. There’s no way to turn sewer systems, protective levees on rivers, and lots of other stuff into profit centers.

Second, even where it does work — say, on toll roads and bridges — that private investment doesn’t come free; it’s in return for the ability to collect fees from the public, which is just taxation in another form. And there’s no evidence that doing public investment this way saves any money. On the contrary, it usually ends up costing taxpayers more than just having the government build the thing.

Wait, it gets worse. Where does even the $200 billion come from? It’s not at all clear that it’s new money; much of it would probably be money that would have been spent on public projects anyway.

What this means is that we aren’t talking about a program to build infrastructure so much as a plan to convert what should have been public projects into private ventures, presumably with big tax breaks.

And who would get in on these lucrative privatization schemes? Do we even have to ask?

[andrei]

 Winstonm, on 2018-January-31, 12:04, said:

This comes from the New York Post, hardly a bastion of liberalism - though obviously not as reliable as Breitbart or Alex Jones.

LOL

We already knew they are asking for the memo to be withhold because it can damage national security.

All this "contains inaccurate information and paints a false narrative" is just BS.