What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[viper37]

I don't know what's more insane, the fact that he keeps doubling down on this bizarre proposal, or that all his coterie will keep tying themselves into knots trying to make it look like 5D chess.

Bah.

If it's the Trump and Musk family setting boot on the grounds in Gaza to dislodge Hamas, I'm all for it.

I've seen the posters, Trump seem like a very capable man of handling himself...

[Valmy]

It's hard to imagine he would want boots on the ground.

Not sure how else the US "takes Gaza" though.

[Valmy]

I think Whatshisname on the Rest is Politics US podcast is right: Trump is addicted to attention especially now at his advanced age and that's why he is constantly announcing outrageous stuff.

The real danger of course is that Musk and the Project 2025 people are using the distraction to enact their own agendas.

Well both are a real danger.

The funny part is that even if we wanted to be distracted from Musk's activities he won't let us. Dude is loudly announcing everything he does and demanding praise and attention, which is a weird thing to do if your plan is to use Donald Trump as a distraction while you work in the shadows.

[Neil]

It's alarming that the US is proposing that they slash domestic consumption at the same time that they're going to impose massive tariffs that make imports and exports impossible, while also deregulating the financial sector.  It's like they're deliberately trying to cause a depression, and thought that the Gilded Age was something to aspire to.

[Barrister]

It's alarming that the US is proposing that they slash domestic consumption at the same time that they're going to impose massive tariffs that make imports and exports impossible, while also deregulating the financial sector.  It's like they're deliberately trying to cause a depression, and thought that the Gilded Age was something to aspire to.

Trump has literally said that, hasn't he?  That the US was wealthiest during that time period?

[crazy canuck]

It's alarming that the US is proposing that they slash domestic consumption at the same time that they're going to impose massive tariffs that make imports and exports impossible, while also deregulating the financial sector.  It's like they're deliberately trying to cause a depression, and thought that the Gilded Age was something to aspire to.

Trump has literally said that, hasn't he?  That the US was wealthiest during that time period?

The good old days when workers were not so uppity and would work for food and lodging.

[Valmy]

The good old days when workers were not so uppity and would work for food and lodging.

And we would have gotten away with it to if it weren't for that meddling Teddy Roosevelt.

[crazy canuck]

The good old days when workers were not so uppity and would work for food and lodging.

And we would have gotten away with it to if it weren't for that meddling Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[Oexmelin]

Trump has literally said that, hasn't he?  That the US was wealthiest during that time period?

Yep.

[Jacob]

The US putting boots on the ground in Gaza would be... wild. I'd expect there to be a steady stream of dead American soldiers, likely an increase in terrorism targeting Americans, a loss of American allies, a strengthening of Russian and Chinese positions.

My impression of Trump, however, is that he's reluctant to order the deployment of troops. Trump likes bullying, and he likes military pomp and circumstance, but my sense that he's kind of squeamish about ordering military action.

Basically lacks the moral clarity to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions and with military deployment it's very black and white. You either ordered the troops there, or you didn't. And it's very hard to equivocate away the responsibility for the body bags if something goes wrong. Jokes and demeaning nicknames isn't going to cut it if the public mood turns against a military deployment.

It's also a thing that's hard to cancel quickly. Trump can impose a tariff, then cancel it, then reimpose pretty much on a whim. Gearing up the US military to put boots on the ground somewhere takes time, visibly costs a lot of money, and requires visibly backing down over a protracted period if it's not followed through on.

We'll see of course. Maybe Trump will change here, or be talked into something by the may bad actors around him. But I think he is instinctually disinclined towards military adventurism.

[crazy canuck]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/opinion/treasure-secretaries-doge-musk.html?unlocked_article_code=1.v04.AzII.TKEMpr3JTTgO&smid=url-share

Opinion
Guest Essay

Five Former Treasury Secretaries: Our Democracy Is Under Siege

Feb. 10, 2025


By Robert E. RubinLawrence H. SummersTimothy F. GeithnerJacob J. Lew and Janet L. Yellen

The writers are former Treasury secretaries.

When we had the honor of being sworn in as the 70th, 71st, 75th, 76th and 78th secretaries of the Treasury, we took an oath to support and defend the United States Constitution.

Our roles were multifaceted. We sought to develop sound policy to advance the president's agenda and represent the economic interests of the United States on the world stage. But in doing that, we recognized that our most fundamental responsibility was the faithful execution of the laws and Constitution of the United States.

We were fortunate that during our tenures in office no effort was made to unlawfully undermine the nation's financial commitments. Regrettably, recent reporting gives substantial cause for concern that such efforts are underway today.

The nation's payment system has historically been operated by a very small group of nonpartisan career civil servants. In recent days, that norm has been upended, and the roles of these nonpartisan officials have been compromised by political actors from the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. One has been appointed fiscal assistant secretary — a post that for the prior eight decades had been reserved exclusively for civil servants to ensure impartiality and public confidence in the handling and payment of federal funds.

These political actors have not been subject to the same rigorous ethics rules as civil servants, and one has explicitly retained his role in a private company, creating at best the appearance of financial conflicts of interest. They lack training and experience to handle private, personal data — like Social Security numbers and bank account information. Their power subjects America's payments system and the highly sensitive data within it to the risk of exposure, potentially to our adversaries. And our critical infrastructure is at risk of failure if the code that underwrites it is not handled with due care. That is why a federal judge this past weekend blocked, at least temporarily, these individuals from the Treasury's payments system, noting the risk of "irreparable harm."

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
While significant data privacy, cybersecurity and national security threats are gravely concerning, the constitutional issues are perhaps even more alarming. We take the extraordinary step of writing this piece because we are alarmed about the risks of arbitrary and capricious political control of federal payments, which would be unlawful and corrosive to our democracy.

A key component of the rule of law is the executive branch's commitment to respect Congress's power of the purse: The legislative branch has the sole authority to pass laws that determine where and how federal dollars should be spent.

The role of the Treasury Department — and of the executive branch more broadly — is not to make determinations about which promises of federal funding made by Congress it will keep, and which it will not. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh of the Supreme Court previously wrote, "Even the president does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds." Chief Justice John Roberts agrees: He wrote that "no area seems more clearly the province of Congress than the power of the purse."

During our collective 18 years at the helm of the Treasury, we never were asked to stop congressionally appropriated funds from being paid out in full. Not since the Nixon administration has this type of executive action been contemplated. At that time, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the president did not have the power to withhold federal funds that Congress had authorized.

The Trump administration may seek to change the law and alter what spending Congress appropriates, as administrations before it have done as well. And should the law change, it will be the role of the executive branch to execute those changes. But it is not for the Treasury Department or the administration to decide which of our congressionally approved commitments to fulfill and which to cast aside.

No Treasury secretary in his or her first weeks in office should be put in the position where it is necessary to reassure the nation and the world of the integrity of our payments system or our commitment to make good on our financial obligations.

Secretary Scott Bessent has had to do just that, and we were comforted to see the agency commit to Congress that any recent access to Treasury's payment systems "is not resulting in the suspension or rejection of any payment instructions submitted" to the federal government. When he has been asked — repeatedly — if Treasury has tried to block any federal payments, he has stated unequivocally that "we have not."

We hope this commitment stands. It is how the framers intended it when they designed a government with checks and balances that gave the executive branch a host of powers, but provided for elected members of Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to levy taxes and spend federal funds.

Many people and entities depend on Treasury's faithful disbursement of federal funds: Social Security checks arrive each month. Veterans receive their benefits. Medicare providers are reimbursed. Federal workers, members of the military and businesses that provide goods and services to the government are all paid on time and in full. Holders of outstanding federal debt receive interest payments.

People often rely on these funds for survival, making any risk of their cutoff or delay existential. But even more than the importance of making good on particular commitments is the importance of making good on the principles that this country stands for. We have during our service in the Treasury Department faced moments of crisis, when the specter of an American default loomed. Any hint of the selective suspension of congressionally authorized payments will be a breach of trust and ultimately, a form of default. And our credibility, once lost, will prove difficult to regain.

[The Brain]

It's important that Europe ditches Nazi-led Nato and builds its own security.

[Barrister]

We'll see of course. Maybe Trump will change here, or be talked into something by the may bad actors around him. But I think he is instinctually disinclined towards military adventurism.

Trump is the anti-T.R. - he likes to talk loudly and aggressively but never actually do anything.

I think I said before - there's something to Trump's idea that the US should occupy Gaza and rebuild.  It could be the kind of "cutting the Gordian knot" kind of thinking that might make something actually happen.

But of course it would put US soldiers at huge risk.  Which is exactly why no US President has ever suggested such an idea, and I suspect the US population would have zero appetite for the inevitable casualties.

[garbon]

I think I said before - there's something to Trump's idea that the US should occupy Gaza and rebuild.  It could be the kind of "cutting the Gordian knot" kind of thinking that might make something actually happen.

You also claimed you weren't normalizing him.

[viper37]

Judge directs Trump administration to comply with order to unfreeze federal grants 

The court has issued an order, Trump ignored it.
The court re-issued it in no uncertain term.

On the one side, Musk says the judge should be impeached.
On the other, Vance says the executive can do whatever they want.  Trump is unconcerned.


Wanna bet nothing will happen to this administration and the Republicans will not move to impeach?