Trumpling the Truth

[Turdacious]

Details of President Trump’s first budget have now been released. Much can and will be said about the dire social consequences about what is in it and the ludicrously optimistic economic assumptions it embodies. My observation is that there appears to be a logical error of the kind that would justify failing a student in an introductory economics course.

Apparently, the budget forecasts that US growth will rise to 3.0 percent because of the Administration’s policies—largely its tax cuts and perhaps also its regulatory policies. Fair enough if you believe in tooth-fairies and ludicrous supply-side economics.

Then the Administration asserts that it will propose revenue neutral tax cuts with the revenue neutrality coming in part because the tax cuts stimulate growth! This is an elementary double count. You can’t use the growth benefits of tax cuts once to justify an optimistic baseline and then again to claim that the tax cuts do not cost revenue. At least you cannot do so in a world of logic.

The Trump team prides itself on its business background. This error is akin to buying a company assuming that you can make investments that will raise profits, but then, in calculating the increased profits, counting the higher revenues while failing to account for the fact that the investments would actually cost some money to make. The revenue generated by the investments might exceed their cost (though the same is almost never true of tax cuts), but that doesn’t change the fact that the investment has a cost that must be included in the accounting.

This is a mistake no serious business person would make. It appears to be the most egregious accounting error in a Presidential budget in the nearly 40 years I have been tracking them.

http://larrysummers.com/2017/05/23/a-budget-warning/

[dead man walking]

is this true?

Last month, President Trump visited Saudi Arabia and his administration announced that he had concluded a $110 billion arms deal with the kingdom. Only problem is that there is no deal. It’s fake news.

I’ve spoken to contacts in the defense business and on the Hill, and all of them say the same thing: There is no $110 billion deal. Instead, there are a bunch of letters of interest or intent, but not contracts. Many are offers that the defense industry thinks the Saudis will be interested in someday. So far nothing has been notified to the Senate for review. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the arms sales wing of the Pentagon, calls them “intended sales.” None of the deals identified so far are new, all began in the Obama administration.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2 ... ampaign=fp

[Grandpa's Spells]

is this true?

Last month, President Trump visited Saudi Arabia and his administration announced that he had concluded a $110 billion arms deal with the kingdom. Only problem is that there is no deal. It’s fake news.

I’ve spoken to contacts in the defense business and on the Hill, and all of them say the same thing: There is no $110 billion deal. Instead, there are a bunch of letters of interest or intent, but not contracts. Many are offers that the defense industry thinks the Saudis will be interested in someday. So far nothing has been notified to the Senate for review. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the arms sales wing of the Pentagon, calls them “intended sales.” None of the deals identified so far are new, all began in the Obama administration.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2 ... ampaign=fp

One of the things that's becoming apparent is he's not staffing the government, so he's operating with a skeleton crew of 3rd stringers with way too much on their plates. Putting together a deal of that size is hard. It seemed unlikely at the time he could pull it off. I'm a little surprised it was a complete fabrication, but only a little.

I don't get why he isn't putting Pence in charge of getting the mid-level and uninteresting/nonthreatening people in place. Hurricane season is almost here, and there's no FEMA director. You don't need a blood oath of loyalty from your FEMA director.

[Turdacious]

Top lawyers with at least four major law firms rebuffed White House overtures to represent President Trump in the Russia investigations, in part over concerns that the president would be unwilling to listen to their advice, according to five sources familiar with discussions about the matter. [...]

"The concerns were, 'The guy won't pay and he won't listen,'" said one lawyer close to the White House who is familiar with some of the discussions between the firms and the administration, as well as deliberations within the firms themselves.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/four-top-law ... 23972.html

[dead man walking]

these sorts of stories are common today:

President Donald Trump is lashing out at Democrats for allegedly stalling his appointments and agenda, but it’s his own administration that is frequently sitting on the necessary paperwork for nominees.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/0 ... ork-239124

the nytimes editorial writers note that trump has not nominated a single person to fill the open u.s. attorneys posts:

Three months after President Trump abruptly fired half of the nation’s 93 United States attorneys, following the resignations of the other half, he has yet to replace a single one.

i've started to wonder whether he wants the job. he enjoyed running. he felt great about winning. i don't know that he's got any appetite for governing in democracy.

[Grandpa's Spells]

A local restaurateur took a meeting with Ivanka years ago when they wanted to get his brand in one of the hotels. He took the meeting, saying "I'll take a meeting with anybody, because I might learn something, but there was no way we'd do a deal. The New York people told me that they look for suckers to sign a contract, and then x weeks before opening they cut the deal in half and say 'Take it or sue us.' Nobody serious would work with them now." He said this publicly on a podcast with no apparent fear.

It didn't occur to me that this could prevent Trump from hiring a legit law firm, which he's about to very badly need.

[nafod]

You don't need a blood oath of loyalty from your FEMA director.

WHY NOT!

[Turdacious]

The top White House spokesman wouldn't say whether President Donald Trump retains confidence in Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday, following a series of Trump tweets a day before criticizing the Justice Department's handling of his travel ban against predominantly Muslim countries.

"I have not had a discussion with him about that," White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer responded after a reporter asked whether Trump continued to support Sessions.

Spicer gave a similar answer when asked May 9 whether Trump retained confidence in then-FBI Director James Comey. Trump fired Comey later that day.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... l-sessions

[nafod]

The top White House spokesman wouldn't say whether President Donald Trump retains confidence in Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday

WTF? How about an "of course he has POTUS' full confidence"?

Meanwhile, if Qatar takes the POTUS tweets personally and plays hard ball and says get out of Al Udeid Air Base...

[Turdacious]

As the White House braces for former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony Thursday, sources tell ABC News the relationship between President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions has become so tense that Sessions at one point recently even suggested he could resign [...]

Asked by ABC News if the attorney general had threatened or offered to resign, Justice Department spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores declined to comment.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/attorney ... d=47875090

[Turdacious]

As the White House braces for former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony Thursday, sources tell ABC News the relationship between President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions has become so tense that Sessions at one point recently even suggested he could resign [...]

Asked by ABC News if the attorney general had threatened or offered to resign, Justice Department spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores declined to comment.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/attorney ... d=47875090

I can't think of another time where these kinds of arguments were so public.

[JimZipCode]

i've started to wonder whether he wants the job. he enjoyed running. he felt great about winning. i don't know that he's got any appetite for governing in democracy.

That's always been my wife's opinion, that he never expected or intended to win the job, but once he got on the roller coaster there was no way off.

If Jeb! or Hillary had won against him, Trump could have dined out for years on speeches about the political establishment and the media. Now he's stuck with the most complicated and frustrating job of his life. At least he's a high-energy person.

[Herv100]

Intelligence heads said today no obstruction.

So it's down to Peacock Comey.(who just got sued for unconstitutional mass surveillance of 20 million americans)

[Grandpa's Spells]

Intelligence heads said today no obstruction.

No they didn't.

[Herv100]

Wrong.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/07/top-i ... sia-probe/

[Grandpa's Spells]

That's a cute way they phrased it, but you are still drawing a false conclusion. They were asked 10 different ways if Trump attempted asked them to help shut down the investigation, and they refused to answer that question. That doesn't mean Trump didn't do it, and strongly suggests the opposite.

[Grandpa's Spells]

Comey's initial statement is out. Reflects exactly what WaPo and NYT have reported.

[Yes I Have Balls]

Intelligence heads said today no obstruction.

Yeah, that's not true. It's almost like you type this shit on purpose even though you know it's incorrect. *shrug*

[nafod]

Wrong.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/07/top-i ... sia-probe/

“In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything that I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate. And to the best of my collection … I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so,” Rogers told Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the vice chairman of the Senate panel.

“Did the president … ask you in any way, shape or form to back off or downplay the Russia investigation?” Warner asked.

Rogers said that he would not discuss specifics of conversations he had with Trump, but added: “I stand by the comment I just made, sir.”

Hell, that's like ten times better than just saying, "No, he never asked."

[dead man walking]

Wrong.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/07/top-i ... sia-probe/

“In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything that I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate. And to the best of my collection … I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so,” Rogers told Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the vice chairman of the Senate panel.

“Did the president … ask you in any way, shape or form to back off or downplay the Russia investigation?” Warner asked.

Rogers said that he would not discuss specifics of conversations he had with Trump, but added: “I stand by the comment I just made, sir.”

Hell, that's like ten times better than just saying, "No, he never asked."

i don't follow your point?

are you saying rogers' statement is 10x better for trump?

rogers offers a personal impression: no pressure, nothing inappropriate. he does not, however, provide a fact: no, he never mentioned the investigation, or yes, he did.

[Turdacious]

The White House and U.S. intelligence chiefs Wednesday backed making permanent a law that allows for the collection of digital communications of foreigners overseas, escalating a fight in Congress over privacy and security.

The law, enshrined in Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is due to expire on December 31 unless Congress votes to reauthorize it, but is considered vital by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Privacy advocates have criticized the law though for allowing the incidental collection of data belonging to millions of Americans without a search warrant.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-i ... liticsNews

[nafod]

Wrong.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/07/top-i ... sia-probe/

“In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything that I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate. And to the best of my collection … I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so,” Rogers told Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the vice chairman of the Senate panel.

“Did the president … ask you in any way, shape or form to back off or downplay the Russia investigation?” Warner asked.

Rogers said that he would not discuss specifics of conversations he had with Trump, but added: “I stand by the comment I just made, sir.”

Hell, that's like ten times better than just saying, "No, he never asked."

i don't follow your point?

I'm just saying that when Rogers was asked if the President asked him to back off or not, his response was, "Yes, the sky is indeed blue."

[Herv100]

Liberal Hillary voter informs homosexuals like Anderson Cooper about the law

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkp_Bmab07w

[nafod]

Liberal Hillary voter informs homosexuals like Anderson Cooper about the law

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkp_Bmab07w

You should start a "What if Hillary was President instead of Trump" thread.

[powerlifter54]

Liberal Hillary voter informs homosexuals like Anderson Cooper about the law

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkp_Bmab07w

You should start a "What if Hillary was President instead of Trump" thread.

By far, the best thing about Trump is he isn't Hilliary. The second is he put a stake in the heart of that Vampire Family.