What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[viper37]

Musk and Trump just stole 80M$ in Congressionnal-approved FEMA funds from a NY City bank account, money already disbursed for shelter and services that is missing.

[viper37]

Faith related EO dominated the agenda so far, with 21 of these:
https://www.axios.com/2025/02/11/trumps-executive-orders-memos

[grumbler]

"I'm here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being the primary guarantor of security in Europe."

US Secretary of Defense, February 12, 2025.

That's... not good. It is very, very, very not good. 

Not only that, but when he renamed Fort Liberty (as shitty name, to be sure) back to Fort Bragg, he was careful to note that it wasn't named for the Confederate general, but another guy with the same name.

I hope he isn't stupid enough to believe that we are that stupid.

[Richard Hakluyt]

What? Like Fred Bragg the Dallas car salesman 

[The Minsky Moment]

The better move would be to say it is named after Braxton Bragg, as an insult to the CSA.

Now we are likely to end up with Ft. Nathan Redwood Forest, Ft. Benedict Ahnald, and Ft. Alois Hitler

[grumbler]

What? Like Fred Bragg the Dallas car salesman 

Pretty much.  A WW2 soldier so well-known he has his own Wikipedia page... created yesterday.

[Admiral Yi]

I do not see them as bad faith questions.

You see Europe as freeriding on defense.  Your own definition does not meet reality.

Some countries are spending more than the US.  The US is reducing its military expenses while others are increasing it, that's closing the gap in my mind.

You maintain base in Europe as projection in power because a stable world is better for US commerce.  US does not have friends, it has interests.  Not my words.

Each time a rival gets stronger, the US lose.

If you want one or two question, again, was the US richer in 1931 or 1961?
For one more, if you were a time traveler, would you prefer to live in 1931 Georgia or 1961 New York and why?

Hats off to Poland.  That doesn't change the fact that the majority of European countries are paying less than 2% of GDP, a number they have promised to meet over and over and over again.

Your 1931/1961 question demonstrates you don't understand the concept of free riding. The fact that the US gets some benefit from NATO does not mean other countries are not free riding.  Free riding is about splitting the bill, not whether the food tastes good.

[dist]

That sounds very revisionist to me. Since the fall of the USSR, there wasn't any reason for any of the NATO country to reach this kind of commitments. The US overspent Europe for other reasons than having to defend Europe. The necessity to increase military spending in Europe has only very recently become a clear necessity, and this is where it has been lagging though efforts have been made. So let's not pretend that Europeans were free lunching on America's defense spending until it became clear that Putin was ready to military threatened and annexed its neighbours.

[Admiral Yi]

That sounds very revisionist to me. Since the fall of the USSR, there wasn't any reason for any of the NATO country to reach this kind of commitments. The US overspent Europe for other reasons than having to defend Europe. The necessity to increase military spending in Europe has only very recently become a clear necessity, and this is where it has been lagging though efforts have been made. So let's not pretend that Europeans were free lunching on America's defense spending until it became clear that Putin was ready to military threatened and annexed its neighbours.

If this is the case, why did European leaders across the board  on several different  occasions promise (and fail) to meet the 2% target? 

[Savonarola]

Paging Dr. Sigmund Freud:

'We Have To F*ck Trump': Congresswoman Delivers Profane Rallying Cry

The American Federation of Government Employees gathered Monday on Capitol Hill and rallied "to save the civil service" and oppose Trump's push to reduce the size of the federal government's workforce. Trump has been working with the Department of Government Efficiency's Elon Musk, whose task is to clean up government waste. While speaking to protesters, Dexter was seen at the podium, calling out Trump and teasing her supporters to not "tell her children" she had made a certain statement.

"I've been told I have 30 seconds, so I am going to tell you that we do have to — I don't swear in public very well — but we have to fuck Trump! Please don't tell my children that I just did that!" Dexter said.

Uhm... are you sure that's absolutely necessary?  Could we just kiss him on the lips instead, maybe?

[The Minsky Moment]

If this is the case, why did European leaders across the board  on several different  occasions promise (and fail) to meet the 2% target? 

They promised because they wanted to do it and meant to do it.  They failed because they are democracies with real legislatures.

[The Minsky Moment]

Now, such a flood of bullshit could very well be part of a larger Putinist/Orbanist playbook, but that's not the vibe I am getting so far.

Trumpworld is far from being a single, unified movement; there are a lot of different political sub-factions and personalities; like many successful authoritarian rulers, Trump likes to keep his options open and play divide and conquer within his own camp.

Trump himself has no master plan; his is the ultimate opportunist standard go to strategy is the "wait and see".  But there are definitely a number of people in his revised inner circle that have very carefully studied Orban and Putin and are attempting to push that blueprint.  This goes back to 2017 when Bannon talked about "flooding the zone" to overwhelm resistance but it is far more organized and directed now.  If the vibe seems less coherent it is because the Orbanists are not the only voices in Trumpworld and don't control Trump himself. 

This makes it all the more important for the opposition to respond as if the Orbanists are in control and pursuing the master plan.  There are some signs already that Trump is pulling back from brink of open contempt of the judiciary, but that is only because he is concerned it might backfire.  If he were sure it would work, he'd back the Orbanist bid to enhance his power.

[Syt]

https://apnews.com/article/house-republicans-budget-blueprint-trump-tax-cuts-ff2bddf31f4e7cb0928139072392a091

House Republicans unveil blueprint to extend $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and lift the debt ceiling

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans released a budget plan Wednesday that sets the stage for advancing many of President Donald Trump's top domestic priorities, providing for up to $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and a $4 trillion increase in the debt limit so the U.S. can continue financing its bills.

The budget plan also directs a variety of House committees to cut spending by at least $1.5 trillion while stating that the goal is to reduce spending by $2 trillion over 10 years.

The blueprint represents a first step in a lengthy legislative process that would allow Republicans to pass some of their top priorities in a simple majority vote. The House Budget Committee is expected to hold votes on the plan on Thursday. House Speaker Mike Johnson predicted it would easily advance out of committee.

"Then, we'll work with everybody over the week to make sure they are on board," Johnson said.

Johnson has set an ambitious schedule for moving the resolution and subsequent legislation, but tensions remain within the Republican conference about the scope of the proposed tax and spending cuts. Some want more in tax cuts than what is in the blueprint while others want steeper spending cuts.

"There'll be a lot of negotiations back and forth," Johnson said. "There's a lot of moving parts to this, but our objective is to fulfill all the president's campaign promises and the full agenda, so we have time to do that."


Budget resolutions are often considered statements of priorities. But the 45-page plan is more than just a policy blueprint as it provides specific directions to House committees to rearrange the federal money flow. GOP leaders are eyeing cuts to social services, and particularly Medicaid, as they seek massive savings.

The Energy and Commerce Committee, which handles health care spending, is asked to cut $880 billion over the decade, while the Education and Workforce Committee is asked to reduce spending by $330 billion. The Agriculture Committee is asked to save $230 billion, while the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is asked to find at least $10 billion in cuts through 2034.

Even as some programs would be cut, money would be shifted to other Trump priorities, including a $100 billion boost in defense spending over the next decade through the Armed Services Committee and an additional $90 billion for the Homeland Security Department, which is carrying out Trump's massive immigration deportation.

House Democrats were harshly critical of the budget plan.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries held a joint press conference and accused Republicans of not taking action to lower costs for everyday Americans since securing the White House and both chambers of Congress.

"Why? Their primary objective is to enact massive tax cuts for their billionaire donors and wealthy corporations," Jeffries said. "That's what the Republican budget is all about."

There is also concern from Democrats that the plan could lead to cuts in the safety net. Rep. Brendan Boyle, the top Democratic on the House Budget Committee, said the tax cuts won't pay for themselves through increased economic growth so cuts to various government programs such as Medicaid will be sought.

"Their plan blows up the deficit and sticks the middle class with the bill, whether through higher prices, deep cuts to essential programs, or both," said the Philadelphia lawmaker.

Republicans say they don't want to take benefits away from those who rely on Medicaid, but they are considering requiring more able-bodied Americans to work as a condition of their participation.

"If you add work requirements to Medicaid, it makes sense to people. It's common sense," Johnson said. "Little things like that make a big difference not only in the budgeting process but in the morale of the people. You know, work is good for you. You find dignity in work. And the people who are not doing that, we're going to try to get their attention."

To offset some of the cost of extending the tax cuts Republicans passed in Trump's first term, they are also eying the possibility of ending some of the clean-energy tax credits that Democrats championed and passed under former President Joe Biden.

As House Republicans press ahead, Senate Republicans are pursuing a narrower effort focused on boosting border security and defense spending.

Republicans have been debating since last year whether to enact the bulk of Trump's agenda in one or two pieces of legislation. The Senate is moving on a two-bill track, while the House is moving on a one-bill track. It's unclear which side will win out in the end.

The Senate Budget Committee advanced the narrower budget plan on Wednesday in a party-line vote. It would allow $175 billion to be spent on border security, $150 billion for defense and $20 billion for the Coast Guard. Their budget would not include an extension of tax cuts, leaving that to be dealt with in a second bill later this year.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the committee's chair, said in selling the blueprint that a majority of Americans support deporting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally, but that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was running out of funding. He said more agents and detention space will be needed to allow for the deportation effort.

"We don't have time to waste," said the South Carolina Republican. "Our country is very much at risk in multiple fashions abroad and at home."

Republicans defeated a spate of amendments from Democrats that included taking Medicaid and the nutrition assistance program known as SNAP off the table from cuts. Sen. Jeff Merkley, the top Democrat on the committee, said the amendments were focused on ensuring the process underway in Congress would not raise the cost of health care and other vital services for Americans.

"Families of America, get worried," he said as debate drew to a close.

[garbon]

So their great plan is to mostly have unfunded tax cuts bar 12%?

[viper37]

Your 1931/1961 question demonstrates you don't understand the concept of free riding. The fact that the US gets some benefit from NATO does not mean other countries are not free riding.  Free riding is about splitting the bill, not whether the food tastes good.

See about Minsky response.

When it was time to go to Afghanistan, all of NATO went to Afghanistan and contributed, some more than others.

When America decided it needed to leave everyone to hang dry in there, piss off most of their allies by imposing tariffs because it had refused to invest in clean energy and invaded Iraq, NATO still stayed in Afghanistan and some of its allies followed in Iraq.

Now you're shitting on them.

Then Republicans slap them again with tariffs, betray them to the Russians and North Koreans, complain some of their people don't like Americans.  Repeat & Rinse, complain some more about objectives not being met in a democracy.

Fine.

Anyway.  I read in the news that you are preparing your next colonization mission to the Carribean.  It truly is a return to the 19th century.  It's Haïti and the Dominican Republic for your soldiers.  There goes my retirement plan.