The Daily Nag.

It is not Trump that is hated.

It is Freedom, Liberty, Resposibiliy, Consequenses of Actions, and Results of Behaviors.

Oh, and they hate those who love and cherish those things.

They hate you.
They hate me.

Trump is our "Avatar", our "Effegy".

They see him, but they are out to destroy us.


-nagmonkey

In Saudi Arabia and Israel they know the difference between a bonafied leader and a feckless poser empty suit.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
The Daily Nag.

It is not Trump that is hated.

It is Freedom, Liberty, Resposibiliy, Consequenses of Actions, and Results of Behaviors.

Oh, and they hate those who love and cherish those things.

They hate you.
They hate me.

Trump is our "Avatar", our "Effegy".

They see him, but they are out to destroy us.


-nagmonkey

Very, very, well put Monkey.

Trump’s Budget Is Exploding Liberal Heads, So There’s a Lot to Love
May 23, 2017

There’s not a small dose of Stephen Bannon’s “dismantle the administrative state” serum in President Donald Trump’s 2018 budget proposal, which hit lawmakers’ desks today.

Over the next 10 years, Trump’s proposal would trim $4.3 trillion (with a “T”) of federal spending, while adding a modest $469 billion in discretionary defense spending, and $200 billion in “infrastructure” spending.

What has liberal heads exploding is the entirely necessary cuts to Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). These expenses would be shifted to individual states, who honestly do a better job managing safety-net programs designed to be temporary. When run by the one-size-fits-all boot of the federal government, these programs turn into generational poverty for millions of Americans.

Between Medicaid, CHIP, and food stamps (SNAP) cuts, government spending would shrink by $888 billion. Add to that another $311 billion in interest payments on the debt as the budget contracts, for a total of $1.199 trillion.

It really doesn’t matter if the cuts last 10 years (they almost surely won’t). Any cuts to these leviathan transfer payments is the first step in actual budget discipline.
Share this

I haven’t included the White House’s claim of $2 trillion in economic growth or $593 billion in savings from reductions in war funding. These are forward-looking, even spurious claims. But any cuts at all to liberal favorites which give Washington more power and states less power are triggers that automatically dump dead children, diseases, and starving single moms on Republican laps.

Cue the violins from the Washington Post (and Vanity Fair et al, I didn’t even bother to read HuffPo or Mother Jones):

The National Cancer Institute would be hit with a $1 billion cut compared to its 2017 budget. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute would see a $575 million cut, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases would see a reduction of $838 million. The administration would cut the overall National Institutes of Health budget from $31.8 billion to $26 billion.

Because liberals know best that only government spending prevents cancer, HIV, and seniors falling. Only federal tax money can produce “Science.” Only Medicaid, CHIP, and SNAP save children from hunger. Right.

And the critics complain about transferring $500 million back into block grants to states, because “block grants allow states to plug holes in their budgets, without accountability that federal programs require.” That’s the real reason they don’t like it: It takes power from the feds to bully states and lets state legislators and governors determine what’s best.

Funny how when California legislators move to protect sanctuary cities, they are rock-ribbed guardians of the public good, but when state legislators have to manage programs the feds used to control, they’re untrustworthy thieves and criminals.

More to love:

The administrative rollback in funding is almost breathtaking.

EPA cut by 31 percent, to $5.65 billion (not enough in my book but a good start)
Converts many foreign military sales (FMS) assistance and financing to loans
Department of Education programs cut by 13.5 percent ($9.2 billion)
Merges the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) into the State Department
Guts the State Department’s Office of Global Women’s Issues among other sinecures with no discernible purpose

What the liberals tend to gloss over is that Trump wants to add paid family leave–something that will have a real impact on families–to his budget. When they do mention the program, they simply criticize it as not enough.

Congress will have a good time with this budget, and hopefully most if it can survive intact, to be force-fed down Democrats’ throats. This budget exceeded my expectations, because I didn’t think Trump would cut the most contentious programs, although he left Medicare and Social Security alone.

Overall, it’s a good start to some fiscal sanity in a government that really believed it could grow forever and spend unlimited amounts of money without eventually irreparably harming our economy. Kudos to Trump’s budget director Mike Mulvaney for his efforts.

http://theresurgent.com/trumps...heres-a-lot-to-love/

Several outlets running with a story that 3 Whitehouse staff members have been identified as sources of leaks.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

< snip >

Over the next 10 years, Trump’s proposal would trim $4.3 trillion (with a “T”) of federal spending...

< snip >

That is a paltry (yes, PALTRY) $430B in reductions per year.

In FY 2016 the federal deficit was $587B.

That means under President Trump's budget plan, the federal government will continue to outspend revenue to the tune of $157B per year, or $1.57T over that same 10 year window.

Mind you, that is a VAST improvement over Obozo's deficit spending, which added around $1.1T per year (not accounting for the smoke and mirrors of the Federal Reserve's binge of "quantitative easing").

Its not a solution that gets us to a path of fiscal health; all it does is kick the can down the road.

If President Trump is serious about fixing our broken fiscal policy, we need to see a budget that lops a full $1T per year of federal spending, while keeping revenues the same. That would give us a $500Bish surplus we could use to reduce the debt.

Alternatively, we could simply admit defeat and default on all $19T in debt obligations, and start over, but no one knows what lies in that Pandora's box, so no one is willing to try it.

What . . . no growth? I was hoping for some growth.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
What . . . no growth? I was hoping for some growth.

Well... since you bring it up... the projections for growth are quite rosy....

So what emerges when looking at the underlying assumptions of Trump's budget? Nothing short of assumed economic nirvana.

As the following table taken from page 45 of the budget (titled "A New Foundation For American Greatness") shows, the US is expected to grow at 2.3% in 2017, 2.3% in 2018 and so on, until GDP plateaus at 3.0% in 2020 and remains there until the end of calendar 2027.



What this means is that the White House is assuming there will be no deficit for the entire duration of the projected 10 year period!

But that's not all, because it also means that the White House budget is based on the assumption that the expansion that started in June 2009 will last at least until December 2027, or an absolutely unprecedented 222 consecutive months of expansion.

There is a problem with that: as the chart below shows, an expansion of that duration - nearly 19 years in a row - would not only be the single longest expansion in American histoy, but it would also last double the next longest duration ever recorded in the US, the expansion which began in March 1991 and ended with the dot com crash, in March 2001.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...umps-proposed-budget

All the press negativity all these months, all the lies and hand wringing from the press trying to tank Trump...

Well, Trump approval among likely voters sits at 46%.
The press will be unhappy Trump isn't in the 30s.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...ion/prez_track_may23

quote:

Originally posted by lbj:
All the press negativity all these months, all the lies and hand wringing from the press trying to tank Trump...

Well, Trump approval among likely voters sits at 46%.
The press will be unhappy Trump isn't in the 30s.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...ion/prez_track_may23

I don't even believe those numbers.

quote:

If President Trump is serious about fixing our broken fiscal policy, we need to see a budget that lops a full $1T per year of federal spending, while keeping revenues the same.

Chelim, thanks for the table. I was making a tongue-in-cheek comment about not acknowledging a key component of Trump's fiscal philosophy: GROWTH.

The poster argued from the point of view that "serious" fiscal policy assumed "keeping all the revenues the same."

Irreversible outsourcing, job loss, bad trade deals, real unemployment, defeatism and punishing no-growth taxes were the prior assumptions but things have changed.

Why is pessimism preferable to optimism in the face of demonstrated economic changes as a result of Trump's presidency?

quote:

Alternatively, we could simply admit defeat and default on all $19T in debt obligations, and start over, but no one knows what lies in that Pandora's box, so no one is willing to try it.

That is a good thought ......BUT the total obligations which include entitlements is over 100T.

Edit: It is now estimated to be $127T:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...illion/#f456cf29bf8a

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
Several outlets running with a story that 3 Whitehouse staff members have been identified as sources of leaks.

That's interesting. Any updates (no news handy at the moment)?

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
Several outlets running with a story that 3 Whitehouse staff members have been identified as sources of leaks.

That's interesting. Any updates (no news handy at the moment)?

Reports appear to be based on the word of a single source, a correspondent from an outfit I am not familiar with and not corroborated. Picked up by Breitbart, Gateway Pundit and a few others. Nothing from mainstream outlets yet.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...d-to-fire-them-soon/

quote:

The poster argued from the point of view that "serious" fiscal policy assumed "keeping all the revenues the same."

the stank of FAIL is strong in this one

Maybe a bit harsh on the poster. The notion that Trump must cut a trillion to reduce the debt is common among no-growth views of what a serious budget would require. The poster is behind the curve of the policy changes of the new administration.

Obama projected 3 and 4% growth by taxing, spending and decimating the notion of work. The welfare rolls exploded and manufacturing moved away or never started. Policies impact projections.

President Trump's team of real-life job creators seems to be seeking realistic policies for growth.

Breitbart notes what I see as the predictable apoplexy of the no-growth economists who's tax and spend policies failed miserably. Try This

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
Why is pessimism preferable to optimism in the face of demonstrated economic changes as a result of Trump's presidency?

That's an excellent question. Perhaps some of the whiners/economic experts/presidential historians in this thread can offer up something which resembles an explanation.

^^^

There is "spend like it like you stole it".

There is "bury it in the ground, so you don't lose it."

And there is "spend wisely, that it will increase and bring many-fold returns, and in time, reduce the loss and debt."

POTUS DJT is the last type of guy.

I have no trouble with that.

Excellent points by the monkey on the top and bottom of the page!

At the gym this morning I noticed the TV screens at work. Fox News was covering almost exclusively the bombing in the UK. All the rest? TRUMP/RUSSIA, TRUMP/RUSSIA, TRUMP/RUSSIA (ukbombing) TRUMP/RUSSIA, TRUMP/RUSSIA, TRUMP/RUSSIA.

Keep digging the hole, boys. You don't seem to learn lessons.