What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

His position is tenable as long as he has the support of his employer.  It's purely a staff position.  If he feels uncomfortable due to the allegations that's his own issue.

[garbon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43034786

Trump's infrastructure blueprint 'a scam'

Mr Trump wants Congress to authorise $200bn (£144bn) over a decade to spend on roads, highways, ports and airports.

The president hopes the US states and private sector will stimulate another $1.3tn in improvements.

The plan was a Trump election promise, but it could entail Americans paying higher local taxes, fees and tolls.

The blueprint is part of a $4.4tn budget proposal which abandons the long-held Republican goal of balancing the federal budget within a decade.

"We have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East, $7 trillion. What a mistake," Mr Trump said at the White House on Monday.

"And we're trying to build roads and bridges and fix bridges that are falling down and we have a hard time getting the money and its crazy."

What's in the blueprint?
A senior administration official who briefed reporters over the weekend said the $200bn investment would be paid for "out of savings from other areas of the federal budget".

The plan calls for $50bn of public funding dedicated to modernising infrastructure in rural areas, many of which voted for Mr Trump in the 2016 elections.

The proposal includes $100bn for an incentives programme "to spur additional dedicated funds from States, localities, and the private sector".

The administration also seeks $20bn in loans and bonds to finance projects including transportation and water.

The blueprint allows states to add or increase tolls on inter-state highways, and to charge fees to use highway rest areas.

However, it bans states from charging for "essential services such as water or access to restrooms".

The plan also seeks to reduce the time required to obtain environmental permits.

The Trump administration is planning to sell off Reagan National and Dulles International airports near Washington DC as part of the proposal.

"The Federal Government owns and operates certain infrastructure that would be more appropriately owned by State, local, or private entities," the plan says.

Presentational grey line
A legislative bridge to nowhere?
Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington

If there's one thing politicians love, it's infrastructure spending. It creates jobs, pleases businesses and gives officeholders something tangible to point to when constituents ask what they've done for them lately. So it's quite a remarkable achievement for the Trump administration to have come up with an infrastructure plan that will likely be of limited popularity and difficult to pass in Congress.

The main problem for the White House is that the proposal allocates no new funds for bridges, railways, roads and tunnels. Instead, it recommends taking money out of other government programmes - although it leaves to Congress the unenviable task of determining what gets the axe.

In addition, the plan leans heavily on states and localities to pick up the tab for the projects. Their budgets are always tight, and recent cuts to federal deductions for state and local taxes will make it harder to raise revenue.

Then there's the private funding component of the proposal. While it seems attractive in theory, tolls and fees that line corporate pockets have long been unpopular with Americans.

This doesn't mean an infrastructure bill won't happen. Chances are, however, what Congress passes will look very different from what was presented on Monday.

Presentational grey line
What's the response?
The plan already faces stiff opposition.

It does not offer as much new federal funding as Democrats seek. They have advocated public infrastructure investment of five times the amount just proposed by Mr Trump.

"After a full year of empty boasts, the president has finally unveiled a puny infrastructure scam that fully fails to meet the need in America's communities," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi.

On the right, deficit hawks are likely to baulk at any new spending unless savings can found elsewhere in the budget.

Some critics say the administration's plan is a bid to privatise the nation's infrastructure, shifting the cost burden on to states, which would pass it on to citizens.

Environmentalists say the proposal to streamline the review process for permits would increase risks to vulnerable wildlife.

"It's a scam to line the pockets of corporate polluters by gutting protections for our environment," said the Center for American Progress.

But one prominent business group was full of praise for the president's proposal.

"It could help us reclaim our rightful place as a global leader on true 21st-century infrastructure," said Jay Timmons, head of the National Association of Manufacturers.

What next?
The administration has called this proposal a starting point for negotiations.

But Mr Trump has made it a legislative priority this year, as November's mid-term congressional elections loom.

The president met state and local officials on Monday, including the governors of Wisconsin, Louisiana, Virginia and Maine.

He will try to sell the proposal to congressional leaders on Wednesday.

[The Minsky Moment]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43034786

Trump's infrastructure blueprint 'a scam'

  . . .
"We have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East, $7 trillion. What a mistake," Mr Trump said at the White House on Monday..

Trump admin slightly increased the authorization for DoD's "overseas contingency" budget - most of which is ME operations  . . .

[mongers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43034786

Trump's infrastructure blueprint 'a scam'

  . . .
"We have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East, $7 trillion. What a mistake," Mr Trump said at the White House on Monday..

Trump admin slightly increased the authorization for DoD's "overseas contingency" budget - most of which is ME operations  . . .

Yeah but that's a sunk cost, this is the budget for the interiors that'll make the place a true amazing resort.

[garbon]

Money to spend on efforys to take their oil that is rightfully America's.

[frunk]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43034786

Trump's infrastructure blueprint 'a scam'

  . . .
"We have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East, $7 trillion. What a mistake," Mr Trump said at the White House on Monday..

Trump admin slightly increased the authorization for DoD's "overseas contingency" budget - most of which is ME operations  . . .

It's the same disconnect when he complains about spending too much money for our NATO commitments or to protect Japan, while always pushing for more military spending.  What, exactly, is our military supposed to be doing if we withdraw from NATO and Asia and why are we spending even more money on it?

[Admiral Yi]

I think y'all are going overboard.  Complaining about money spent in the ME was on a constant loop during the Bush 2 admin.  From the left.

[The Minsky Moment]

The issue is that the President is still thundering on about $$ spent on ME even though he is now the one proposing the spending.  Another example of Donald attacking his own government.

[Razgovory]

Well, we've have our first president in really in the modern era* believes that government is the problem not the answer.

The other two I can think of are Andrew Jackson who was insane and militantly ignorant and Andrew Johnson who was a spiteful bastard

[Eddie Teach]

What about Reagan's famous quip that the scariest words in the English language were "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"?

[garbon]

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/373487-the-white-house-is-rotting-from-the-head-down

The White House is 'rotting from the head down'

As the saying goes, the fish rots from the head down; and there is a stench coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The antidote to this rot? The powerful #MeToo movement, sensible, patriotic Republicans with spines and the 2018 elections.

This past week has seen a White House in freefall (and to say that about a White House in constant chaos speaks volumes), with a president, a chief of staff and senior aides embroiled in a crisis of competency and character that inevitably turned into a crisis of communications of the highest order.

The resignation of staff secretary Rob Porter has unmasked a White House uninterested in protecting women in abusive relationships and, instead, protects the alleged abuser, especially if he is doing a good job. They did not care. Plain and simple.

Reportedly, the highest ranking senior aides, including White House general counsel Don McGahn and chief of staff John Kelly, have known for months, if not a whole year, about the horrific allegations of domestic abuse by two ex-wives and a girlfriend of Porter's. They weren't just rumors, either. The concerns were brought to them by the FBI. They did nothing; plain and simple.

The White House quickly became consumed in a downward spiral of public statements. First, they were indignant at the accusations and strongly defended one of their own. As it became clear this would be public relations debacle, they scrambled to put out a flimsy statement about domestic abuse having no place in our society and about how Porter had resigned. It was too little too late; plain and simple.

The response to this whole episode on behalf of the White House was wholly inadequate at best. At worst, it reflects the tone that the man in the Oval Office set the moment he entered the once-hallowed halls of the White House.

Donald Trump has set a misogynistic tone all of his life — from his interviews on Howard Stern as he objectified and degraded women on air, to his insults of Rosie O'Donnell and Megan Kelly, to the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape where he proudly brags about committing sexual assault, to the more than 16 women who have accused him of sexual harassment or sexual assault.

Trump acts as if he does not believe women are equal to men. They are not peers to be respected, given equal treatment or protected from the obvious discrimination and sexism that runs rampant as a societal scourge.

He cannot even show any kind of sympathy or empathy. He is devoid of humanity toward women who are victimized by men.

He has a history of siding with men who have been found or have been accused of abusing women — Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, Roy Moore and Mike Tyson — unless the men are Democrats like Al Franken and Bill Clinton.

Trump misogyny translates into policy prescriptions as well as hypocrisy on a global level. Trump's White House has not appointed a White House adviser on violence against women, created during the Obama administration.

They have left the Department of Justice's Office of Violence against Women and the State Department's Ambassador-at-large for Global Women's Issues vacant as well. They closed the Office of Women and Girls, also a priority under the Obama White House. Many advocates fear Trump will not back the re-authorization of the Violence against Women Act.

Furthermore, this past weekend, Trump seemed to belittle and betray the #MeToo Movement by tweeting that men's lives can be destroyed by a "mere" allegation.

Porter's ex-wife, Jenny Willougby, so took umbrage at Trump's demeaning tweet that she responded with a scathing column in Time berating his ignorance at the real and dangerous societal malady that is domestic abuse.

As a woman, a mother and a human being, this is troubling on so many levels. What does the behavior of this president say to America's little girls and young women coming of age? Right now, it says, "You don't matter."

But the #MeToo movement, the women of America and the men who support them say otherwise.

That is why Trump is afraid. He should be. The #MeToo movement brings up all of the accusations that multiple women have hurled against him. He has zero credibility on the issue, but instead of staying silent, he is batting for the wrong team — the alleged abusers.

Trump should also be afraid of the movement because it is what is energizing and mobilizing women all over the country to run for office and to register and vote in the midterm elections. More than 25,000 women have expressed an interest in running, according to Emily's List (20,000 are currently doing so).

Trump is losing ground with women across the board — even the non-college-educated women who were a foundation of his base. But Republicans should be especially worried for the midterm elections.

If they are not seen as separating themselves from a misogynistic White House and administration, and instead are seen as enabling them, they will not fare well in November.

Many questions remain about what exactly happened in the Rob Porter case. Who knew what and when? Where are the voices of the top women at the White House, and how can they defend these actions?

How can someone with alleged sexual battery in their background survive for over a year in the Oval Office? And how, in the face of clear evidence of domestic violence, can the president of the United States defend a wife beater and disparage the women accusers?

That is what rot does. When the person at the top lacks basic humanity and decency and suffers from a dearth of morality, the people around them either become infected with the same, or they never had the needed values to stand up to the rot to begin with. Plain and simple.

[Grey Fox]

Never trust White women.

[Razgovory]

What about Reagan's famous quip that the scariest words in the English language were "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"?

Many Presidents have said they wish to reduce the role of government, very few actually actually do it.  Reagan's quip was just politics, bullshit.  Trump, now Trump really does want to decrease government.  Not for an ideological reason, but because he's crooked and is afraid his past behavior will come to light.  Trump doesn't hate the IRS because he believes it stifles American innovation, he hates it for the same reason that Al Capone did.

[Jacob]

So apparently now Trump wants to privatize the ISS?

[Liep]

So apparently now Trump wants to privatize the ISS?

?