Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
The Congressional Budget Office Just Destroyed Trump’s Budget Promises
FYI: Hey, Trump voters! Do you want the good news or the bad news?
The good news is that the green eye-shades and number-crunchers at the Congressional Budget Office have just produced a fantastic checklist for a massive, Texas-Chainsaw-Massacre-style attack on all that “waste” and “padding” and “featherbedding” in the entire U.S. federal budget.
That's not surprising. I do think many of his voters/supporters are in for a rude awakening when they find out that a) he can't do all he promised, b) some types of jobs are simply obsolete and NOT coming back, and c) what he does may well end up hurting them more than they think -- ie, repeal the ACA, trade wars, etc.
In response to the CBO findings, I predict the following: Since facts are irrelevant and/or meaningless in the present day, the CBO 'experts' are therefore wrongful idiots, and the only 'facts' that matter are whatever Donnie excretes into the Twittersphere in the wee hours of the night.
There's also the terse paraphrase of H.L. Mencken: Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
A surely copyrighted phrase from Saleno Zita (The Atlantic): "The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally."
So it may take a good while longer for reality or what passes for reality to sink in. Especially given the dichotomy between what Trump is tweeting and what he is doing with appointments. As rfono suggests, some of the consequences (such as ACA repeal, etc.) may take awhile to manifest in any case.
The article is highly politicized. The title "destroys.." is rather hyperbolic. Its a budget disagreement. No houses were bombed.
The author, Brent Arends, has been in the past (and may be currently, I've no idea) affiliated with DowJones/Barrons. Barrons has been adamantly anti-Trump -- and pro-Establishment during the entire election cycle. If they had their druthers, the POETUS would have a last name of "Bush".
Middle of the way through the article, Arends writes:
"President-elect Trump “won” the election — on a technicality, admittedly — after promising that he was going to slash taxes,..."
NO! Trump did not "win" the election. He won the election. The insertion of air quotes suggests DJT didn't really win, when in fact he did.
A v good article, actually, but you do have do define the slavery-facing EC as a 'technicality', and the approaching-3M popular-vote HRC margin is quite remarkable.
Comments
That's not surprising. I do think many of his voters/supporters are in for a rude awakening when they find out that a) he can't do all he promised, b) some types of jobs are simply obsolete and NOT coming back, and c) what he does may well end up hurting them more than they think -- ie, repeal the ACA, trade wars, etc.
In response to the CBO findings, I predict the following: Since facts are irrelevant and/or meaningless in the present day, the CBO 'experts' are therefore wrongful idiots, and the only 'facts' that matter are whatever Donnie excretes into the Twittersphere in the wee hours of the night.
/end political snark
A surely copyrighted phrase from Saleno Zita (The Atlantic): "The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally."
So it may take a good while longer for reality or what passes for reality to sink in. Especially given the dichotomy between what Trump is tweeting and what he is doing with appointments. As rfono suggests, some of the consequences (such as ACA repeal, etc.) may take awhile to manifest in any case.
BBC: Taking Trump Literally and Seriously
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38188074
The title "destroys.." is rather hyperbolic. Its a budget disagreement. No houses were bombed.
The author, Brent Arends, has been in the past (and may be currently, I've no idea) affiliated with DowJones/Barrons. Barrons has been adamantly anti-Trump -- and pro-Establishment during the entire election cycle. If they had their druthers, the POETUS would have a last name of "Bush".
Middle of the way through the article, Arends writes:
"President-elect Trump “won” the election — on a technicality, admittedly — after promising that he was going to slash taxes,..."
NO! Trump did not "win" the election. He won the election. The insertion of air quotes suggests DJT didn't really win, when in fact he did.
The article is not even worth kindling.