President-Elect Donald Trump: The Thread

[caulfield12]

Because he was able to work together with Tip O'Neill. Bi-partisanship efforts, which contrast with polarization that picked up with Gingrich/Clinto and then continued to escalate under GW Bush. Surviving an assassination attempt added some gravitas...and "ending the Cold War" (although the GOP never wants to give credit to Obama for bin Laden.)

 

 

[Quin]

Why does everyone seem to think Reagan was so great? Because all of the Republicans beat off to him?

 

Essentially. Only reason why.

[greg775]

I challenge Sox talk to name one "good" president who was Republican. There's some serious partisanship on this board. I'm sure you'll go back to Lincoln. Or was he lousy too? Don't people who hate one party and love the other realize they are acting a bit silly?

Edited December 21, 2016 by greg775

[RegionSox]

I challenge Sox talk to name one "good" president who was Republican. There's some serious partisanship on this board. I'm sure you'll go back to Lincoln. Or was he lousy too? Don't people who hate one party and love the other realize they are acting a bit silly?

I think Teddy Roosevelt was a good president.

[Quin]

I challenge Sox talk to name one "good" president who was Republican. There's some serious partisanship on this board. I'm sure you'll go back to Lincoln. Or was he lousy too? Don't people who hate one party and love the other realize they are acting a bit silly?

 

Roosevelt, Eisenhower.

 

Challenge completed.

[LittleHurt05]

Why does everyone seem to think Reagan was so great? Because all of the Republicans beat off to him?

 

Why does everyone on this board seem to think Reagan wasn't great? Because all of the Republicans beat off to him?

[StrangeSox]

Probably due to his legacy of supply-side economics or, on a more focused level, his horrible handling/complete neglect of the AIDS crisis. He ran and governed as a right-wing conservative, so it's unsurprising that a bunch of people opposed to that ideology wouldn't exactly revere him.

 

By the end of his Presidency his mind was really gone, too.

[caulfield12]

Reagan will always have his treatment of the poor, Iran-Contra/Ollie North, Central America, AIDS/HIV, the crack epidemic/war on drugs...many issues the left will have with him.

 

As far as Republicans presidents, you have Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt (who had quite an independent streak)...Reagan would probably be 3rd if you went back to the Civil War.

 

Nixon did SOME good things before Watergate, but it's hard to overlook that and re-escalating Vietnam. Starting a dialogue with China was a positive.

[The Gooch]

Probably due to his legacy of supply-side economics or, on a more focused level, his horrible handling/complete neglect of the AIDS crisis. He ran and governed as a right-wing conservative, so it's unsurprising that a bunch of people opposed to that ideology wouldn't exactly revere him.

 

By the end of his Presidency his mind was really gone, too.

 

Don't forget the "War on Drugs." Wonderful how that turned out...

[NorthSideSox72]

Reagan has a mixed legacy. What's so very odd to me though is, I can't think of a modern President who is so thoroughly caricatured by both sides of the aisle. It's absurd. Republicans (or at least many GOP politicians) prop him up as a paragon of conservatism, when in reality, he was far more liberal than any candidate the GOP has run out there for nomination in the last few cycles. Democrats make him out to be an evil, warmongering poor-people-hater, when in reality he did plenty of good things along with the bad.

 

He's become folklore.

 

By the way, I though Bush Sr was a better President than he's gotten credit for.

 

[GoSox05]

He didn't do any good and did plenty of really bad. Illegal bad. Reagan at the very least should have been impeached. I think he was the worst modern president we've had.

 

I also think Trump will be worse.

 

 

 

Also, Bush Sr. was also awful.

Edited December 21, 2016 by GoSox05

[Balta1701]

41 is a President who looks far better in hindsight. You may take that as an insult to 43 as much as you want, it was meant that way.

[NorthSideSox72]

Thread idea!

 

[Chisoxfn]

Reagan has a mixed legacy. What's so very odd to me though is, I can't think of a modern President who is so thoroughly caricatured by both sides of the aisle. It's absurd. Republicans (or at least many GOP politicians) prop him up as a paragon of conservatism, when in reality, he was far more liberal than any candidate the GOP has run out there for nomination in the last few cycles. Democrats make him out to be an evil, warmongering poor-people-hater, when in reality he did plenty of good things along with the bad.

 

He's become folklore.

 

By the way, I though Bush Sr was a better President than he's gotten credit for.

Bush Sr was a good president, imo.

[StrangeSox]

Trump's budget director pick: “Do we really need government-funded research at all”

 

It'll be great if we set ourselves back economically by decades because we stupidly gut research funding.

[StrangeSox]

Donald Trump is holding a government casting call. He’s seeking ‘the look.’

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/don...m=.81e31f96781e

 

[caulfield12]

Mark Cuban has been pushing for at least $100 billion of Trump's proposed infrastructure spending going into robotics, where we've clearly fallen behind Asia in terms of design and especially manufacturing.

[StrangeSox]

Carl Ichan for special advisor in regulatory overhaul, also to help pick next SEC head.

 

https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/81168034...src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

I honestly wonder what everyone who allegedly voted for Trump out of economic populism makes of all his ridiculous picks and the Republicans rush to funnel even more money to the wealthy while screwing everyone else

[Jerksticks]

Carl Ichan for special advisor in regulatory overhaul, also to help pick next SEC head.

 

https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/81168034...src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

I honestly wonder what everyone who allegedly voted for Trump out of economic populism makes of all his ridiculous picks and the Republicans rush to funnel even more money to the wealthy while screwing everyone else

This is speculative. We could tax the s*** out of the rich and wipe out the majority of charitable donations that go to science and medicine and whatnot. Tax those absolute charitable bastards! String em up! Pay your fair share! Quit paying for most of our science and research! Give it to a social program that runs out of money after we get dependent on it! Quit employing people like me! Make the poor poorer!

 

Just messin. I just love idealism vs realism.

[caulfield12]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/don...iffs/index.html

 

Lots like Trump and his new Commerce Secretary are committed to at least a "superficial" 5% import tariff (compared to the 35-45% proposals we heard during the campaign for Mexico and China).

 

Unsurprisingly, the GOP isn't going to be quick to embrace these measures, although it seems he might make the argument he has executive powers to impose them rather than going through Congress.

 

It's nearly impossible to be for "lower middle class workers" while also satisfying Wall Street simultaneously.

[caulfield12]

This is speculative. We could tax the s*** out of the rich and wipe out the majority of charitable donations that go to science and medicine and whatnot. Tax those absolute charitable bastards! String em up! Pay your fair share! Quit paying for most of our science and research! Give it to a social program that runs out of money after we get dependent on it! Quit employing people like me! Make the poor poorer!

 

Just messin. I just love idealism vs realism.

 

Isn't that classical GOP thinking? The foundations/churches/non-profit and private sector should take over from the government? That theoretically, the government shouldn't have to pay for any research, because the "free market" will figure out a way to develop it and deliver it to market in the most profitable and efficient way? (Of course, this doesn't work quite so well with "for-profit" prisons, the majority of charter schools or the development of the nuclear bomb.)

 

But where is there evidence that giving the MAJORITY of the tax breaks to the Top 10-20% of wage earners and corporations results in any tangible benefits for the bottom 80%?

 

Haven't we seen this tried over and over again since the 1980's? What has been the result, other than the accumulation of more wealth at the top and less at the bottom (see Thomas Picketty's book for tons of illustrations, looking at countries around the world, not just the US).

 

 

At any rate, your theories will quickly be tested with the "replace" part of ObamaCare...

Edited December 22, 2016 by caulfield12

[Jerksticks]

Isn't that classical GOP thinking? The foundations/churches/non-profit and private sector should take over from the government? That theoretically, the government shouldn't have to pay for any research, because the "free market" will figure out a way to develop it and deliver it to market in the most profitable and efficient way? (Of course, this doesn't work quite so well with "for-profit" prisons, the majority of charter schools or the development of the nuclear bomb.)

 

But where is there evidence that giving the MAJORITY of the tax breaks to the Top 10-20% of wage earners and corporations results in any tangible benefits for the bottom 80%?

 

Haven't we seen this tried over and over again since the 1980's? What has been the result, other than the accumulation of more wealth at the top and less at the bottom (see Thomas Picketty's book for tons of illustrations, looking at countries around the world, not just the US).

 

 

At any rate, your theories will quickly be tested with the "replace" part of ObamaCare...

 

Get outa here with your trumped up trickle down talk. Nobody named me was proposing that.

 

If i understand the brackets correctly, the top % of wage-earners currently pay 40%? That's a s*** ton if true. Curious what the Bernieites and Hillaryans think it should go up to to make it a "fair share". 50-60%? And these aren't even the rich people of America. These are the doctors, lawyers, athletes & entertainers...who all donate tons of money. But they aren't the rich. I mean rich enough but not the smart super rich running businesses (the charitable corporate bastards). I'm not saying lower it, just wondering how high becomes too high.

 

I'm not saying privatize research either caulfield...because i didn't say that. I'm just saying if you go after the semi-rich mentioned above, which is a super popular talking point to rally the "revolution of the young people", you're not only removing the incentive for those young people to go to school for 10 years, but you're also going to remove 100s of millions, maybe billions, of yearly charitable donations. Uncle Sam will get it instead of child leukemia etc.

 

You really think Uncle Sam can better direct the use of $10M than the rich guy who's kid died from leukemia, who wants to prevent other kids from the same fate. I don't buy it. I feel like $10M is a piece of dust to Uncle Sam, lost in the redtape of some wasteful govt program developing canine soldiers or something.

 

[caulfield12]

Get outa here with your trumped up trickle down talk. Nobody named me was proposing that.

 

If i understand the brackets correctly, the top % of wage-earners currently pay 40%? That's a s*** ton if true. Curious what the Bernieites and Hillaryans think it should go up to to make it a "fair share". 50-60%? And these aren't even the rich people of America. These are the doctors, lawyers, athletes & entertainers...who all donate tons of money. But they aren't the rich. I mean rich enough but not the smart super rich running businesses (the charitable corporate bastards). I'm not saying lower it, just wondering how high becomes too high.

 

I'm not saying privatize research either caulfield...because i didn't say that. I'm just saying if you go after the semi-rich mentioned above, which is a super popular talking point to rally the "revolution of the young people", you're not only removing the incentive for those young people to go to school for 10 years, but you're also going to remove 100s of millions, maybe billions, of yearly charitable donations. Uncle Sam will get it instead of child leukemia etc.

 

You really think Uncle Sam can better direct the use of $10M than the rich guy who's kid died from leukemia, who wants to prevent other kids from the same fate. I don't buy it. I feel like $10M is a piece of dust to Uncle Sam, lost in the redtape of some wasteful govt program developing canine soldiers or something.

 

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx

$415,000 per year for a single filer at 39.6% is still nothing compared to European tax rates

 

The problem is all those making most of their money through capital gains/investments and paying less percentage-wise in taxes than Warren Buffett's secretary.

 

And the counter is the burn rate and billions lost in companies like Theranos....or, when they do successfully innovate and create a life-changing product, they screw over the middle class yet again. And they still screw over taxpayers by charging the US military huge amounts for the Epipen, which is just one example. There's gouging/obscene profits and then there's a fair amount which incentivizes everyone...but doesn't tax private industry to the point where they see no benefit to invest in research and development.

 

 

Mant of the great inventions of the past 50-60 years came from government and private partnerships, like the computer or internet, which originally was utilized in academia but monetized as a commodity by businesses.

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

The effect of tax policy on charitable giving is pretty much the opposite of what jerksticks is suggesting. Private charity alone is also not enough to meet all of the needs which will only increase once Medicare, Medicaid, social security and the affordable Care act are gutted.

 

And even putting that aside, charitable giving won't make up for wealth inequality climbing even faster than it already is.

[StrangeSox]

And relying on random wealthy people having a particular tragedy befall them is an extremely poor and unreliable way of funding medical research. The NIH on the other hand has a pretty solid record.