Trump's Policies: Pros and Cons

[broncofan]

If you want, raise a policy proposal of Trump that he is implementing or has recommended and we can discuss it. This is flexible as we can shift between policies. Let's start with the Muslim ban from seven countries.

Pro:?????

Con: Likely unconstitutional, overly broad as it bars many people who are not a threat, not broad enough as it does not bar people from countries that have had larger numbers of terrorists (the last two points can be summed up as arbitrary and poorly tailored), discriminatory as it targets Muslims, and it could have reciprocal effects on Americans traveling abroad.

Anyone other thoughts?

[Stavros]

There are no new policies yet, Trump has issued Executive Orders that amend or annul existing provisions in law, the Cardin-Lugar Provision being one example. I don't know how long it takes but the more meaty stuff will be on the plate when Trump and the Republican Party propose new laws in Congress, presumably in the next three months, but from what we learned in the campaign a lot of the 'new' law may in effect be reversals of or amendments to existing law, the Affordable Health Care Act being one example. After all, the immigration control measures are but an extension of existing law amended to suit the prejudices of the Trump team, presumably the Strategic Initiatives Group; just as 'the Wall' and the 'round-up' of illegal immigrants are extensions of existing law. As a Republican interviewed on the BBC in January argued, the priority must be to reverse everything Obama introduced in the last 8 years, so the first year or so of Trump may actually be just one long sequence of revenge.

[hippifried]

The POTUS is not a king. President Trump doesn't have the power to nullify anything by executive directive, except other executive directives. He can't nullify Cardin-Lugar, or any other Act of Congress.

Everyone's watching the clown car, while ringmaster Paul Ryan and his trained monkeys are picking the circus patron's pockets to steal their Social Security and Medicare.

[sukumvit boy]

"The White House is running...believe me ,so smoothly, so smoothly".
Text book psychopathic response .
Approval level is now 38%.

[Stavros]

The POTUS is not a king. President Trump doesn't have the power to nullify anything by executive directive, except other executive directives. He can't nullify Cardin-Lugar, or any other Act of Congress.
Everyone's watching the clown car, while ringmaster Paul Ryan and his trained monkeys are picking the circus patron's pockets to steal their Social Security and Medicare.

We can agree that on his own a President has limited powers, but we should also agree that a President, his White House team, and the alliances they make in Congress can and do create new laws, and amend existing law to reverse components of that law, extend it, and so on. And we can also agree, I hope, that States can make an even more powerful impact on law through the way in which they implement law in their state, as has been seen with transgender and voting rights and registration in some States. Can we also agree that just as Congress is the engine, the Republicans have thrown their weight behind Trump to get what they want, just as in the future -some predicting it will happen this year or next- they will make their moves to remove Trump from office or make no effort to protect him, given that Trump is not a Republican, and setting aside other factors such as Trump suffering a heart attack, stroke etc.

The policy agenda Broncofan thus wants addressed remains to be the highlight of the thread I hope I have not diverted attention away from it through remarks on procedure.

[Stavros]

A relevant policy issue to discuss is the USA and NATO, not least because the newspapers today claim that last year the Russians attempted to assassinate the Prime Minister of Montenegro and destabilize the country having 'warned' it against joining NATO, which Montenegro is scheduled to complete later this year. Some however claim it was a stunt organized by Prime Minister Djukanovic to cement his grip on power, though for the Russians the concern is that when Montenegro joins Serbia will remain its only ally in the Balkans while there is also the loss of access to the Adriatic port of Bar.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-plot-kill-montenegro-prime-minister-milo-djukanovic-overthrow-government-stop-joining-nato-a7588051.html

In addition Trump has argued NATO members must meet their commitment to spend 2% of GDP on NATO which currently only 5 member states do, though Germany, which does not, argues there are other ways of maintaining its commitment than through this financial measure. The broader context is one in which the USA is perceived to be weak in its commitment to European peace, taking a softer line with Russia's aggressive policies in the Ukraine, the Baltic State region and the Balkans. The concern is not helped with mixed messages coming from Trump on the one hand, and Defence Secretary Mattis and VP Pence on the other which may reflect the division between the President and the Republican Party.

I don't know if the average American knows much or indeed, cares much about NATO. During the EU referendum debate in the UK the Leave campaign regularly trashed the idea that the EU had kept the peace in Europe claiming it was NATO, a false argument that quite deliberately ignored the role played by both, not least because the Germans tend to view the Ostpolitik of former SPD Chancellor Willy Brandt as a key mechanism that unlocked the East through dialogue. The fact that the military back-up deterred the USSR from attacking the West may be true but did not prevent the USSR from crushing the uprising in Hungary in 1956, the Prague Spring in 1968, the the Solidarity movement in Poland in 1980, NATO being impotent on all occasions, though one wonders what it could have done in the military sense. NATO failed to act when the military seized power in a coup in Greece in 1968, or when Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, an illegal invasion which remains to this day.

There have also been rifts within NATO, with France withdrawing from the military aspect of the alliance in stages between 1959-1966, a typical example of General de Gaulle's antipathy to the dominance of the USA and his belief that France could look after itself -France rejoined the military alliance in 2009. Marine Le Pen has indicated she might follow de Gaulle's example and leave NATO altogether.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7938191.stm

What purpose does NATO serve now? Would it matter if NATO was dissolved, the US military bases in Europe dismantled and the personnel sent home? Would the European states simply create an alternative military alliance, even though the UK, for example, does not have an independent nuclear deterrent being dependent on the USA for materiel and an agreement not to fire a weapon without US approval -? Although it would fit in with Trump's penchant for isolationism, the status of nuclear weapons may need to be reviewed, particularly if the Trump administration is going to allow civilians to have selfies taken with the dude carrying the Nuclear Codes, a major security lapse if ever there was one. One also hopes that an order to strike Iran doesn't become Iraq, or Iceland become Ireland, or Chad become Chard because dumb Americans in the administration who can't spell send the missiles to the wrong place.

[Budweiser]

Con: Likely unconstitutional, overly broad as it bars many people who are not a threat, not broad enough as it does not bar people from countries that have had larger numbers of terrorists (the last two points can be summed up as arbitrary and poorly tailored), discriminatory as it targets Muslims, and it could have reciprocal effects on Americans traveling abroad.


False. Not unconstitutional. The Constitution provides protections to American citizens, and to nobody else. The U.S.A. can deny entry to any foreign national that we wish, for any reason, including if they are Muslims. We can openly say "fuck you Muslims, we don't want you or your poison bullshit 'religion' in America, so go take a long walk off a short dock," and it would be Constitutional.

[holzz]

I support the ban. Thing is, what if an Iranian is a Zoroastrian? or a Christian? What about Turkey (an Islamic country)? Indonesia? Pakistan? Bangladesh? Malaysia? Brunei? Tunisia? Algeria? What about a Nigerian? some are Christian, some are Muslim. It may make sense in theory. In practice, it won't work.

[broncofan]

False. Not unconstitutional. The Constitution provides protections to American citizens, and to nobody else. The U.S.A. can deny entry to any foreign national that we wish, for any reason, including if they are Muslims. We can openly say "fuck you Muslims, we don't want you or your poison bullshit 'religion' in America, so go take a long walk off a short dock," and it would be Constitutional.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/here_are_all_the_parts_of_the_constitution_trump_s _muslim_ban_violates.html

These are two professors of constitutional law at University of Virginia Law School. They disagree with you and have probably forgotten more about the constitution than you will ever know. Specifically, they say it violates equal protection, due process, and first amendment protections. So why don't you walk off a short dock, you ignoramus or read something about our constitution.

[broncofan]

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/02/01/legal-scholars-question-immigration-ban/

A discussion of legal scholars. Laurence Tribe and Erwin Chemerinsky have written the two treatises that are recommended to every first year law student.

[trish]

False. Not unconstitutional. The Constitution provides protections to American citizens, and to nobody else. ...
I do not believe it’s all that clear cut. Court precedents (set through the centuries) regarding the establishment clause of the Constitution discourage the government from weighing on on which religions are acceptable and which are not. Even if you believe a ban on Muslim immigrants wouldn’t directly affect U.S. citizens (I believe it would) - it would undeniably place a heavy thumb on that scale. The conservatives on the Supreme Court would have to do some wiggling to allow such a break from over two centuries of practice. I’m not saying they won’t do it. Whether America remains the land of religious freedoms it once was may well be tested under this presidency.

[broncofan]

The Constitution provides protections to American citizens, and to nobody else. Trump may be able to tailor a discriminatory order that passes muster but his current one does not. In the meantime, this is simply not true. What you say implies an illegal immigrant within the U.S. could be summarily imprisoned, which would violate fifth amendment due process. The first, fourth, and fifth amendments would also apply I'm pretty sure to someone who is an illegal alien. I can find authority for that if you'd like. But if they did not, that would imply that an illegal alien could be imprisoned for their speech, or that an undocumented person in California for instance could have illegally obtained evidence admitted against them in a criminal trial. Can't imagine.

[broncofan]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights

Again, doesn't mean that non-citizens outside the country would necessarily succeed in challenging their exclusion, but it's not true that the constitution only applies to citizens.

[Stavros]

False. Not unconstitutional. The Constitution provides protections to American citizens, and to nobody else. The U.S.A. can deny entry to any foreign national that we wish, for any reason, including if they are Muslims. We can openly say "fuck you Muslims, we don't want you or your poison bullshit 'religion' in America, so go take a long walk off a short dock," and it would be Constitutional.

The USA already has in place an intense vetting procedure for immigrants, why does President Trump think the USA needs a new procedure? Why is it that at his first Executive Order, Donald Trump did not place Pakistan on the list in spite of the fact that most of the bombings that have taken place over the last 38 years in India, Kashmir, Afghanistan and Pakistan itself -75 killed and hundreds injured in Lahore just 4 days ago- have been organised in Pakistan where the Taliban was created, where Osama bin Laden was given sanctuary and where his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri also lives?

As for immigrants on the original list, is it not ironic that Steven Bannon was involved in the production of Seinfeld, given that Jerry Seinfeld's mother is the daughter of immigrants from Aleppo? And Steve Jobs, whose Muslim father -still alive- migrated to the USA in the 1950s from Beirut via Homs in Syria, where he was born -could you imagine the USA without Apple? And the first country to recognise the USA as an independent state in 1777? -The Sultanate of Morocco. So it seems that this 'bullshit religion' has given the USA a few positive things -and before you point out Seinfeld's mother is Jewish, we note your vile attack on American Jews from 3 days ago so I guess you have a list of undesirables you want excluded from your country...?
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?100846-You-ve-Been-Trumped!/page9 (#90)

[Budweiser]

Reality Check: "A President Trump would have the power to ban certain people from entering the country. Under U.S. code the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country for any reason that he thinks best."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgVjEB7KXpo

[filghy2]

You're citing as your authority a right-wing conspiracy theorist who doesn't even have any legal qualifications? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Swann

[Budweiser]

You're citing as your authority a right-wing conspiracy theorist who doesn't even have any legal qualifications? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Swann

You're using argumentative fallacies to bolster your case?

[broncofan]

You're citing as your authority a right-wing conspiracy theorist who doesn't even have any legal qualifications? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_SwannThank you for that. I chuckled when I got to the part about his qualifications as an RT America journalist. When discussing unsettled constitutional law I realize that some humility is in order which is why I've tried to find legal scholars who have written extensively on the subject. I am an attorney and am happy to say what I think a current case means but am not qualified to anticipate how the court will rule in an area of the law where there is not a lot of precedent. There may be a difference between how the court decides to treat people detained at the airport within U.S. territory and those who never board a plane and do not enter the U.S. Or between the treatment of green-card holders and those who have not even begun the naturalization process.

In the meantime, we have a bit of a battle of the experts. I've cited four people who have spent their entire lives analyzing the constitution, teaching it to aspiring lawyers, and producing scholarship v. a guy who works for the American wing of a Russian propaganda channel. I will also point out Budweiser that even if the president is authorized to do something under a statute, the statute might be unconstitutional as applied. You've seamlessly shifted between constitutional and statutory law as though there is no difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge

[broncofan]

You're using argumentative fallacies to bolster your case?
The fact is we're all adopting other people's opinions to argue about this. Unless you are going to write something about the constitution that is not conclusory or based on someone else's analysis, the argument is going to be carried out by appeal to authority, which is the inverse of the ad hominem fallacy you're complaining about.

I would also like to point out that in law, argument by authority is not really a logical fallacy, since lower courts must follow precedent of higher courts regardless of whether it is consistent with their views on the subject. So the issue of who said what previously is not independent of the truth of what we're discussing.

[trish]

...
even if the president is authorized to do something under a statute, the statute might be unconstitutional as applied. You've seamlessly shifted between constitutional and statutory law as though there is no difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge
Exactly.

[blackchubby38]

Regarding NATO.

Maybe just the presence of the organization was enough to keep the USSR from attacking the west. Or maybe it was also a conscious effort by the USSR not to trigger World War III. They probably figured there were other ways to wage war against capitalism and West. But it would be suicide to take on the collective strength of United States and Western Europe by going directly at them.

As for NATO's lack of action towards the USSR when it comes to their actions in Hungary and the other incidents that stavros mentioned, maybe that was conscious effort by the member nations not to trigger World War III. The idea being, we just recovered from almost 40 years of conflict that led to the loss of human life and devastated Europe's infrastructure. Do we really want go through that again with the possibility of nuclear weapons being brought into the equation?

[broncofan]

and before you point out Seinfeld's mother is Jewish, we note your vile attack on American Jews from 3 days ago so I guess you have a list of undesirables you want excluded from your country...?

I know this thread was about policies but I think you've hit upon a very important condition for the attitude of the alt-right towards Jews.

Rejection of Muslims is unconditional for Budweiser. But if you are Milo, can lay claim to Jewish ancestry and spend your days pouring hatred and scorn onto Muslims, you are beyond reproach. On the other hand, if you have spent your entire life in public service like Ginsburg and do your job you can leave this country with a doc marten boot to the ass. He is offering peace in return for silence, a condition that is eventually revoked if one accepts it.

I'm not implying the actions against Muslims are not disgusting without considering their collateral consequences, but this debate will eventually effect the dignity of non-Muslims as well. Same probably goes for the wall.

[Stavros]

Broncofan, what puzzles me about the alt-right in general, and the variants we have in Europe is that I don't see what the outcome of the attack on PC and 'Identity politics' looks like other than version of social armageddon in which 'they' all disappear, or cease to be a vocal minority (like they are going to shut up or hibernate for 4 years?), an exception being abortion where there is a clear intention to either make it illegal or in practical terms impossible. It has been argued that the war against the Jews in Europe began more than a millenium before the Holocaust and that what happened in the 1940s was thus the culmination of a long gestation of hatred and rejection, with a devastating outcome. In the USA in the past, immigration laws, beginning with the the law that limited Chinese immigration in 1889 continued with the limits imposed on Jewish immigration from the 1920s to the 1930s and had a clear objective to 'keep them out'. Although the Executive Order thus implies a Muslim ban, the USA has done it before, and has a clear political outcome, to stop more Muslims from entering the country. However, the hostility shown to Muslims and the various claims made about the threat that they pose means the Executive Order looks like a half-baked policy, as any new atrocity will incite a different set of arguments -should Muslims be rounded up and put in camps or 'sent home'?

Again, if Trump is to lead a campaign against political correctness, what in practical terms does it mean? And in the case of 'identity' rights, the point would be that if Americans are equal before the law, how does one alter the law to produce -what outcome? Same-sex relations and marriage are not going to be re-criminalized, the 'bathroom' rule is for States to determine, but I guess Federal funding for social programmes that relate to transgendered youth can be cut, just as the anticipated demolition of arts funding could damage transgendered artists who may need help to make a film, a play, an exhibition to get practical experience, be noticed, develop a reputation etc. The only outcome I see here is that the Federal government is cutting funding and even if artists can find sponsors somewhere else, if programmes designed to help transgendered youth with drug problems, mental health issues or just basic survival issues like somewhere to live and an income, are cut or stopped altogether, removing what little help they get is hardly a positive outcome. If it smacks of anything it is some form of resentment that transgendered people should have been able to claim it in the first place, much as there must be some voices who see in the Trump administration an opportunity to roll back the Welfare programmes Johnson set in motion in the 1960s which are seen as retarding economic development and creating welfare dependents. As is still the case we have to wait and see how Trump and his allies in Congress approach social policy, and it may be that the socially and economically most disadvantaged are most vulnerable on funding, but even then the outcome that saves the taxpayer money may be lost if the cost in delinquent behaviour increases as a result.

[Stavros]

Regarding NATO.
Maybe just the presence of the organization was enough to keep the USSR from attacking the west. Or maybe it was also a conscious effort by the USSR not to trigger World War III. They probably figured there were other ways to wage war against capitalism and West. But it would be suicide to take on the collective strength of United States and Western Europe by going directly at them.
As for NATO's lack of action towards the USSR when it comes to their actions in Hungary and the other incidents that stavros mentioned, maybe that was conscious effort by the member nations not to trigger World War III. The idea being, we just recovered from almost 40 years of conflict that led to the loss of human life and devastated Europe's infrastructure. Do we really want go through that again with the possibility of nuclear weapons being brought into the equation?

The developments of NATO on the one side, and the Warsaw Pact on the other can be seen as the outcome of the conferences the Allies held toward the end of the War, from Tehran to Potsdam which, in effect, carved Europe into two spheres of influence, with a tacit agreement that one side would not intervene in the other. This was laid down before the development of nuclear weapons and the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, yet some Cold War critics argued this gave great powers to both sides to stamp on dissent -from the Berlin riots of 1953 through to Poland in 1980 on one side, and on the other the campaigns financed by the CIA and domestic intelligence services to combat existing Communist Party politics in Western Europe, in the case of Italy descending into the violence associated with the Gladio network and the emergence in the 1960s of the 'Red Brigades'. Thus one side was paranoid about domestic communism, the other about domestic anti-communism, and this all seemed to melt away with the end of the USSR, which is why Putin is feared, because he has publicly mourned the end of the USSR and his attempts to create at least an economic substitute/successor have been stymied by the refusal of Ukraine to go along with it -Ukraine is see as an industrial and agricultural asset to important to be left alone.

Where this leaves NATO I am not sure. If there is a strategic difference, it is the Russian fear that states that were once reliable Soviet allies become part of NATO, even though they may not be able to afford it- I can't see Montenegro paying 2% of its GDP if it formally joins in April or May. Moreover, Putin's real fear is not that some European state is going to follow Napoleon or Hitler with an invasion, it is the loss of economic sovereignty that Putin feels Russia lost in the 'sale of the century' when his mentor, Boris Yeltsin was in power and, for example, western oil companies rushed in to grab their share of Russian resources, Putin having successfully rolled back many of those deals in the last 5 years or so. Thus for Putin globalization exploited Russia's weakness, and he thus sees Russian security is both military and in economic terms sees Russia as the hub of an economic bloc stretching from the Ukraine through the Caucasus and Central Asia to Vladivostok with access to China as a plus.

In this sense Trump is viewed as a maverick who by undermining NATO would embolden Putin to intervene on his western flank to keep NATO at a distance, though Pence and Mattis have both made commitments that suggest their influence will determine policy rather than Trump's rhetorical flourishes. At the moment, the move made by Putin to recognise travel documents issued by the 'independent republics' of 'Lugansk' and 'Donetsk' in eastern Ukraine raises the bar in terms of what happens next, and while this might mean the government in Kiev receives more aid from NATO, we have yet to see if Trump has an appetite for this fight given the doubts expressed over his relations with Putin, real or imagined.

[filghy2]

Broncofan, what puzzles me about the alt-right in general, and the variants we have in Europe is that I don't see what the outcome of the attack on PC and 'Identity politics' looks like other than version of social armageddon in which 'they' all disappear, or cease to be a vocal minority (like they are going to shut up or hibernate for 4 years?), an exception being abortion where there is a clear intention to either make it illegal or in practical terms impossible.

For most of these people I think it's about the journey rather than the destination. Some people seem to derive their sense of purpose and satisfaction primarily from being part of a group in opposition to other groups that they hate/resent/fear, rather than from any positive goal for themselves. Even if, say, all muslims converted to christianity tomorrow, these people would only be satisfied temporarily. They would soon shift their focus to some other enemy.

This sort of tribalism may be hard-wired into us biologically, because hostility and fear towards other tribes was a good survival strategy in the early days of humanity. For most of recent human history, this has been overcome by culture (broadly defined), which has been critical to human progress. Essentially, we have learnt that cooperation with others and evidence-based learning is a superior strategy to endless fighting and prejudice-based beliefs. Periodically, however, we regress and tribalism regains the upper hand; usually after some economic crisis that leads people to doubt the benefits of cooperation.

One key difference between this and previous episodes is the role of technology. In the old days people were dependent on a relatively small number of media sources, which generally filtered out extreme views (unless the extremists took them over), and also meant that most people were exposed to a reasonably similar range of information and views. Now it is much easier for hate-mongers to spread disinformation, and for people to live in a bubble where they are only exposed to 'information' that confirms their prejudices.

[Stavros]

According to the New York Times, there is a split in the Administration on transgendered students whose rights were protected by directives issued by the Obama administration which conservatives want reversed. The claim is that the split is between the Education Dept which seeks to maintain a Federal directive on rights, and Justice which is opposed. It transpires that Betsy DeVos is a supporter of transgender rights where Jeff Sessions is not. Trump has swung both ways on the issue, wanting the issue sent back to the States rather than see it become a Federal issue, and there is some confusion over the specific issue of 'toilet rights' and bullying, as this quote illustrates:

While the draft being circulated in the Trump administration amounts to a significant rollback of transgender protections over all, it does include language stating that schools must protect transgender students from bullying, a provision Ms. DeVos asked be included, one person with direct knowledge of the process said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/us/politics/devos-sessions-transgender-students-rights.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Apparently both Justice and Education have to agree on policy, so one awaits a final judgement. I can see where this kind of issue appears to be simple, with regard to bullying, and wonder how much of an issue it should be with transgendered students who cannot be a major drain on resources, and for whom a separate or unisex bathroom would seem the obvious solution. But I leave it to others with more knowledge of schools to comment. The broader issue may be important as a litmus test of Trump's campaign rhetoric on political correctness and the position Christian fundamentalists take on gender issues.

[holzz]

More factories in Rust Belt.

Pros - more jobs for depressed regions. More exports to halt trade balance. pro for him to get more votes in hardline GOP areas or Democrats areas like Ohio and Indiana, or PN. Stop reliance on imported goods from China, and "unfair" trade from China.

Cons - China exports a lot since it has less regulation and lower living standards/wages. iPhones or cars made in the USA would cost a lot more. Not many industries could set up in the Rust Belt, since they won't switch from India or CHina, or Africa, overnight. More thought is neede d to see which industries are most economical, have the best opportunity cost, or comparative advantage.

[trish]

More factories in Rust Belt.

Pros - more jobs for depressed regions. More exports to halt trade balance. pro for him to get more votes in hardline GOP areas or Democrats areas like Ohio and Indiana, or PN. Stop reliance on imported goods from China, and "unfair" trade from China...

These aren’t policies, they are goals. One problem so far with Donald is he has no coherent job’s policy. The coal industry is depressed because it’s being squeezed out by oil and natural gas. An executive order that allows coal companies to dump their tailings into fresh streams won’t create jobs in West Virginia, although it will affect the health of the inhabitants adversely. The sad thing is that Donald knows that (even if his acolytes don’t). His order had nothing to do with jobs - in West Virginia or elsewhere. He just wanted to poke his thumb in the eyes of the EPA and environmentalists.

What the country sorely needs is to maintain its deteriorating infrastructure: dams, sewer systems, power grids, bridges, roads etc. Before the GOP obstructionists took over the legislative branch there was bipartisan support for an annual infrastructure budget. No Republican seems to have cared about the jobs lost when that money was diverted to give tax breaks for their donors.

Those tax breaks, we’re told, will spur corporations to make more products and thereby create jobs. There are several problems with this ‘policy.’ Tax-breaks for large corporations aren’t Trump’s idea. They’ve been tried and have failed before. 1) Tax-breaks don’t generate production, demand does. If enough corporations pay their workers shit, there will be no one around who can afford to buy their products. 2) Job growth no longer increases in proportion with increased production because production lines are almost entirely automated these days. A factory that once employed a thousand or more laborers now employs a few hundred. I don’t know of anyone who has a workable policy solution to the problems posed by modern automation.

The Wall Donald wants to build will admittedly create a number of temporary construction jobs, and it will cost $15-million to build. It will be paid for by American tax-payers. The tariffs Donald threatens to place on Mexican products will be paid for by American consumers. If we stop consuming Mexican goods, we’ll collect no more tariffs to cover the cost of the wall. Either way you look at it, WE pay for the wall. The farmers around me, who are all Republican and who all depend on seasonal laborers, get government subsidies and depend on government agricultural forecasts (what insects, what weeds, what blight does one need to inoculate against this year) are beginning to have second thoughts about whether they voted for the right person.

Policy is not Donald’s medium. To develop a policy requires understanding how things interlock and interact with each other and how they react to perturbations from the outside. Donald has never demonstrated he has a head for such things. He knows ‘terrific’ people, posts ‘amazing’ tweets and he has the ‘best words.’ He knows how to bankrupt a company and come out smelling like a rose with gold plated petals. He knows how to hire foreign laborers and hide them from view. He knows how to stiff workers and bail on loans. He knows how to look into a camera shout, "You're fired!" A phrase we may well have to get used to over the next four years.

[broncofan]

Trish covered everything I wanted to say in my post and more. But my reaction to your post was similar. How do we achieve these objectives? Nobody would object to greater exports. How do we increase exports? Are we only trying to minimize the trade deficit and therefore just going to discourage imports? You're more likely to decrease imports and exports at the same time because other countries don't like having their goods taxed.

Who wouldn't want to increase employment in distressed areas. Is it the onerous corporate tax that is preventing companies from hiring more people? I haven't seen any empirical evidence that's the case. Do we subsidize industries to hire workers instead of using automation? Or do we pay to retrain people or provide social services for people who are temporarily displaced? Donald's answers to these questions are like a child's. He does not understand people have been grappling with these issues and it's not as simple as, produce our own stuff, increase the stuff we sell, and build factories.

Instead of infrastructure projects, which the Republicans see as welfare, they want to revive an economy that is obsolete and pay enormous costs to keep it afloat. I don't mind the government paying out money (I think it's a humane thing to do), but isn't this a more indirect way of helping people who are economically distressed and don't want to admit it.

[Stavros]

These aren’t policies, they are goals.

The only thing I would add to your articulate post is the danger of presenting policy as slogans, such as 'Build the Wall', 'lock her up' and so on. Even before he entered office Trump realised that his other slogan -'Scrap Obamacare'- was empty rhetoric, and that was just after one hour with Obama. Affordable Health Care is an example of how the determination by some Republicans to erase everything created during the Obama Presidency is a form of anti-policy revenge with no coherent substitute just as the transgendered student issue both reverses bathroom option policy while protecting victims from bullying, or claiming to.

I have read that at your 'Town Hall' meetings citizens have complained to their Senators and Congressional Reps about the lack of clarity on health care, while Trump and Calamity Sean claim these are all rent-a-crowd agitators who may not even live in the district the meeting is being held in. However, barely a month has gone by and there is still a lot yet to emerge, in policy terms, particularly with regard to taxation and tariffs, but if there are already divisions in government on an issue like transgender students which I am guessing is not that important to most Americans, policy-making on the 'big issues' may yet expose even more weakness and division, and that does not make good policy, and runs counter to Trump's claim to bring people together.

[trish]

Thanks for the additional points, broncofan.

Just a quick addendum to my post: The $15-million is the cost PER MILE for the wall. Some say $16-million per mile. The total may amount from $15-billion to $25-billion.

[broncofan]

What I mind about protectionism is that Republicans want it both ways. If we are protesting unfair working conditions and assisting people who are out of work by taxing foreign goods, then we should ensure workers here are treated well. That means a living wage, healthcare, extended unemployment benefits. If we actually engage in protectionism, we will still have a great big market that corporations will want to service and they will brave higher taxes and wages to do so.

Or we can pay the direct costs of displacement with job retraining, but those who are now out of work will have to accept the same benefits of people they've become accustomed to demonizing. They will have to realize that collecting unemployment should have no stigma. I feel these promises of self-sufficiency are just a facade to avoid acknowledging that with structural economic changes people often face hardship through no fault of their own. Is this just a self-esteem plan so we can subsidize factories and the employees of these factories can continue to vilify people who want "free stuff" like healthcare?

[martin48]

On the cost of the wall - Ikea may have a solution.

[Stavros]

Yes, but to get to the border once you have bought your wall material, you have to work out how to get out of the store. I tried IKEA once, and once was enough. Like heading north from Honduras only to end up in Panama when you really wanted to go to LA.

[martin48]

Of course, you have to load it on one trolley, that wouldn't go through the barriers in the car park (parking lot) and then put it all on the roof rack. Drive all the way to the Mexican border, only to find the Allen Key is missing




Yes, but to get to the border once you have bought your wall material, you have to work out how to get out of the store. I tried IKEA once, and once was enough. Like heading north from Honduras only to end up in Panama when you really wanted to go to LA.

[sukumvit boy]

996243

[Laphroaig]

Yes, but to get to the border once you have bought your wall material, you have to work out how to get out of the store. I tried IKEA once, and once was enough. Like heading north from Honduras only to end up in Panama when you really wanted to go to LA.

My local IKEA has footprints on the floor to guide you (the long way) round the store. I agree with you though, can't stand the place.

[martin48]

Last word on IKEA

[filghy2]

One thing that has been generally overlooked amid the turmoil of the first six weeks is how little this White House seems to be focussed on policy. The overriding priority seems to be fighting a never-ending war with the media and other 'enemies'.

During the campaign, Trump made a great deal about the state of the economy and his claim that a corrupt establishment was benefiting at the expense ordinary Americans. Whatever one thinks about his diagnosis, it is certainly true that income gains have been going overwhelmingly to those at the top of the income distribution; for example, median real wages in the US have not increased since the 1970s. This was undoubtedly a key factor in Trump's electoral victory, in particular through capturing the rust belt states the voted previously for the Democrats.

Given this one would have expected any normal administration to be heavily focussed on the economy; in particular, measures to improve the lot of the working class voters who supported him. The only statement I can recall from this White House on economic policy was on the review of financial regulation, which hardly seems a major working class concern.

One thing that Trump promised was a major infrastructure program. Nothing seems to have happened yet, and recent reports suggest action on this is likely to be deferred until 2018. This seems odd given that construction would employ a lot of blue-collar labour and infrastructure projects have long lead times.

It is true that much of the policy action depends on Congress; however, previous administrations have been heavily involved in developing proposals and trying to influence the direction of Congress. The main priorities for Congress appear to be tax cuts and replacing Obamacare. Tax cuts will be heavily weighted toward the rich and the current healthcare proposal is for a flat tax credit for health insurance purchases. This will be a windfall for higher-income earners who can already afford insurance, but is likely to leave low-income earners unable to afford insurance.

Targeting the media, muslims, immigrants etc and denying any bad news may go down a treat with hardcore supporters, but it is difficult to see how Trump can win in 2020 unless the people in areas of the country that shifted to him last year are convinced they are better off as a result. Presumably they will know what has happened to their own jobs and incomes.

[holzz]

Reusing Rust Belt coal fields


Pros:

- Will bring more jobs
- Will raise depressed economies
- Secure votes in GOP areas, take votes from the Democrats

Cons:

- China and Africa produced cheaper coal
- The overall demand globally for coal is low and will be forever, due to renewable fuels
- Ideas are one thing, but sound ideas how mines can be reestablished or export markets is another

[Stavros]

Coal has never gone away and when the price of oil per barrel was around $100 coal for many nations became a cheaper alternative, the overall demand is high globally and will remain high. The cons with coal are simple -it is dirty and in environmental terms, a killer, of both humans and the local ecology. Capital costs for new plant are high, and it is debatable with modern machinery, particularly in open-cast mining if it will ever be as labour-intensive as it once was, particularly deep underground mining.

The Economist from a few years ago has a fairly balanced view of the topic:
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21600987-cheap-ubiquitous-and-flexible-fuel-just-one-problem-fuel-future

As for the major producers, South Africa is the only significant producer of coal, the top ten in order of production volumes are

World Facts (http://www.worldatlas.com/world-facts/) Coal is proving critical in the world's energy growth. The need for coal is ever increasing, and ever larger percentages of electricity produced in the world is becoming reliant on power plants that use the resource. Regardless of the enormous distribution of coal reserves worldwide, these amounts are proving to not be enough. Furthermore, the ecological harms that come as a result of activities related to coal activities are grave matters and, thus, proper actions have to be taken. Consequently, it is essential for governments to discover innovative technologies for improved mining and coal processing, while also taking into account efficiency and the importance of environmental sustainability. It is paramount for policy makers come up with long-lasting technological solutions that look into future, hence putting the coal sector on a path that would allow it to respond better to future global challenges.

The Top 20 Coal Producers In The World



Rank
Country
Coal production (million tonnes)


1
China
3,874.0


2
United States
906.9


3
Australia
644.0


4
India
537.6


5
Indonesia
458.0


6
Russia
357.6


7
South Africa
260.5


8
Germany
185.8


9
Poland
137.1


10
Kazakhstan
108.7


http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-top-10-coal-producers-worldwide.html

[trish]

Reusing Rust Belt coal fields...


- Will bring more jobsProbably not. Again, modern automation greatly reduces the number of laborers needed at any mining operation. One study suggests 96% of some mining jobs can be automated ( http://www.mining.com/study-shows-96-of-some-mining-jobs-can-be-automated/ ).


- Will raise depressed economies. Were the economies of West Virginia (or other coal mining communities) not depressed when coal mining was at it’s peak? Ask the old timers. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Joo90ZWrUkU )


- Secure votes in GOP areas, take votes from the Democrats Ha-ha. Seriously though, this belongs in the section for Cons.

Speaking of Cons: You let out quite a few. The damage done to the environment, for one. The bone Donald recently tossed to the coal industry was an executive order allowing them to dump coal ash in streams and rivers. The environment is not the only thing damaged. Public health is also at risk. Coal ash contains high amounts of mercury, arsenic and cadmium. The run off of these toxic elements into our waterways from flattened, eroding mountain tops is already a danger. Public health is not the only risk. Miner’s themselves run a significant risk of black-lung disease. The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 created standards that reduced the risks of contracting pneumoconiosis, and somewhat relieved workers who had contracted it of their burdens both financial (requiring compensation for the cost of care) and labor related (moving them to jobs with less exposure without reduction in pay and benefits). Of course these are just the sort of regulations that some claim make coal mining unprofitable. Not so: fracking (which as it’s own serious drawbacks) is what made it possible for natural gas to squeeze out of the U.S. energy market. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hvLoEcLBf0 )

You can’t produce the energy required to run modern civilization without wreaking havoc one way or another; wind farms kill migratory birds by hundreds of thousands. Solar fields shade acres of habitat and require the production and refinement of rare-earth minerals. Hydraulic turbines require damns and lots of maintenance. Fission can be clean, until it isn’t. Then it’s a disaster. Fuels pollute and we use them at such a rate that even the one’s that are renewable in principle are being depleted. Sound energy policy requires careful cost-benefits analysis, not partisan politics. In my opinion: coal is one of the dirtiest fuels ever produced and probably has caused more death, heartache and environmental damage than any other source of energy humans have harnessed. You cannot ‘raise’ a ‘depressed economy’ by lowering the health or well-being of those it depends upon.

[martin48]

So, there you are, Trish

[Laphroaig]

Trish

While I agree with your statement that "coal is one of the dirtiest fuels ever produced", carbon capture technology may mean a resurgence in the use of coal in the future, though now isn't the right time and I suspect it won't be for many years. I do remember, when my Uni was embarking on a large (ie heavily funded) carbon capture project, telling my then head of department that maybe we'd be better just planting a few more trees. :D As you can probably imagine, that didn't go down too well.

One thing that does seem to be continually forgotten though in the whole cleaner energy debate is that oil not only povides fuel, but also provides the raw feedstock material for much of the plastics industry, something that carbon capture technology ultimately looks to replace (ie using CO2 as the feedstock). Whether it can be successful in this aim remains to be seen or at least did the last time I read about it. There almost certainly will have been developments since.

[holzz]

Probably not. Again, modern automation greatly reduces the number of laborers needed at any mining operation. One study suggests 96% of some mining jobs can be automated ( http://www.mining.com/study-shows-96-of-some-mining-jobs-can-be-automated/ ).

. Were the economies of West Virginia (or other coal mining communities) not depressed when coal mining was at it’s peak? Ask the old timers. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Joo90ZWrUkU )

Ha-ha. Seriously though, this belongs in the section for Cons.

Speaking of Cons: You let out quite a few. The damage done to the environment, for one. The bone Donald recently tossed to the coal industry was an executive order allowing them to dump coal ash in streams and rivers. The environment is not the only thing damaged. Public health is also at risk. Coal ash contains high amounts of mercury, arsenic and cadmium. The run off of these toxic elements into our waterways from flattened, eroding mountain tops is already a danger. Public health is not the only risk. Miner’s themselves run a significant risk of black-lung disease. The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 created standards that reduced the risks of contracting pneumoconiosis, and somewhat relieved workers who had contracted it of their burdens both financial (requiring compensation for the cost of care) and labor related (moving them to jobs with less exposure without reduction in pay and benefits). Of course these are just the sort of regulations that some claim make coal mining unprofitable. Not so: fracking (which as it’s own serious drawbacks) is what made it possible for natural gas to squeeze out of the U.S. energy market. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hvLoEcLBf0 )

You can’t produce the energy required to run modern civilization without wreaking havoc one way or another; wind farms kill migratory birds by hundreds of thousands. Solar fields shade acres of habitat and require the production and refinement of rare-earth minerals. Hydraulic turbines require damns and lots of maintenance. Fission can be clean, until it isn’t. Then it’s a disaster. Fuels pollute and we use them at such a rate that even the one’s that are renewable in principle are being depleted. Sound energy policy requires careful cost-benefits analysis, not partisan politics. In my opinion: coal is one of the dirtiest fuels ever produced and probably has caused more death, heartache and environmental damage than any other source of energy humans have harnessed. You cannot ‘raise’ a ‘depressed economy’ by lowering the health or well-being of those it depends upon.

well that's a hypothetical pro, but certainly from the GOP's standpoint. And much of the Rust Belt are swing states, like PN, IL, OH, MN.

[Stavros]

Trish
While I agree with your statement that "coal is one of the dirtiest fuels ever produced", carbon capture technology may mean a resurgence in the use of coal in the future, though now isn't the right time and I suspect it won't be for many years. I do remember, when my Uni was embarking on a large (ie heavily funded) carbon capture project, telling my then head of department that maybe we'd be better just planting a few more trees. :D As you can probably imagine, that didn't go down too well.

One thing that does seem to be continually forgotten though in the whole cleaner energy debate is that oil not only povides fuel, but also provides the raw feedstock material for much of the plastics industry, something that carbon capture technology ultimately looks to replace (ie using CO2 as the feedstock). Whether it can be successful in this aim remains to be seen or at least did the last time I read about it. There almost certainly will have been developments since.

I agree, as there are ongoing developments in carbon capture for both the plastics industry, and so-called 'clean coal'; two articles below offer a readable summary. The question for the US, where the petrochemicals industry is in better health than its European counterparts -largely because of the lower cost of feedstocks due to the 'shale revolution'- is how many jobs are there in this? The crude manner in which Trump presented his campaign implied lots of jobs returning to coal, whereas the modern technology involved may not be so labour intensive, and while these downstream developments with carbon capture may be an effective means of reducing emissions, in the case of 'clean coal' the problems may still lie in the upstream where the coal is being sourced from open cast mining without much care to the environmental damage that causes, particularly now that Trump has lifted some of the regulations that attempted to control the behaviour of coal companies, as mentioned in Trish's post above.

Carbon capture and the plastics industry-
https://www.plasticstoday.com/content/green-matter-carbon-capture-redefined-co2-feedstock/85933200217701

Clean coal and carbon storage-
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/clean-coal.htm

A contrast between the European and the US petrochemicals industry
https://www.ft.com/content/3f131eb8-1e45-11e5-ab0f-6bb9974f25d0

[Laphroaig]

I agree, as there are ongoing developments in carbon capture for both the plastics industry, and so-called 'clean coal'; two articles below offer a readable summary. The question for the US, where the petrochemicals industry is in better health than its European counterparts -largely because of the lower cost of feedstocks due to the 'shale revolution'- is how many jobs are there in this? The crude manner in which Trump presented his campaign implied lots of jobs returning to coal, whereas the modern technology involved may not be so labour intensive, and while these downstream developments with carbon capture may be an effective means of reducing emissions, in the case of 'clean coal' the problems may still lie in the upstream where the coal is being sourced from open cast mining without much care to the environmental damage that causes, particularly now that Trump has lifted some of the regulations that attempted to control the behaviour of coal companies, as mentioned in Trish's post above.

Carbon capture and the plastics industry-
https://www.plasticstoday.com/content/green-matter-carbon-capture-redefined-co2-feedstock/85933200217701

Clean coal and carbon storage-
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/clean-coal.htm

A contrast between the European and the US petrochemicals industry
https://www.ft.com/content/3f131eb8-1e45-11e5-ab0f-6bb9974f25d0

Thanks for the links, Stavros, some interesting reading in there. I take your point (and Trish's) about the other environmental damage caused by coal mining. However, I would hope that along with carbon capture, any revival in coal mining would also include measures and new technologies to minimise those impacts as well as improving safety records. Sadly, the drive for profit and mankinds increasingly voracious appetite for energy consumption and consumer goods makes that probably a forlorn hope. Much like the hope that Trump will eventually see reason and moderate his so-called policies, along with his ridiculous twitter output...

(Ironically, several projects I was involved in years ago to improve the reagents used in certain mining operations (not coal) came under the banner of "Greener Chemistry" There's not much green in mining...)