Impressed by Trump administration

• QuakerOats

  sleeper;1834253 wrote:Great! So it's still a massive public work by BIG government. I'd love to see Trump divert funds from DoD spending to build the wall then. Also needs to increase taxes to pay for it otherwise he will continue to mount up national debt and burden future generations with more BIG government spending.
  
  Change we can believe in.

  It is a defense project; like buying planes and ships to patrol borders. You will figure out. Good luck.
• Crimson streak

  

  sleeper;1834253 wrote:Great! So it's still a massive public work by BIG government. I'd love to see Trump divert funds from DoD spending to build the wall then. Also needs to increase taxes to pay for it otherwise he will continue to mount up national debt and burden future generations with more BIG government spending.
  
  Change we can believe in.

  Well we just back 221 million that Obama tried to send the Palestinians last minute before leaving office. So there's a start
  
  
  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
• QuakerOats

  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-25/trump-plan-for-wall-with-mexico-pushes-builders-shares-higher
  
  
  ...material suppliers on the upswing in anticipation of wall building.
• Spock

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1834226 wrote:Ok, so he wants to build the wall, how will it be procured?
  Will it be DHS that leads the procurement? DHS uses a Coast Guard multiple award contract for construction. They might use that, but it will need to be extended and expanded "big league".
  Will it be the Army Corps, Southwestern and South Pacific Divisions? They have contract vehicles to use, but none nowhere close to the proper value needed.
  I also wonder what the specs will be, and then how bids will be selected.
  
  If I had to guess, it will be out of the Army Corps and be procured through a series of contracts and contract vehicles that will balloon the costs and bids.
  That is also not fast. Procurement will probably take a year plus and that assumes no snags in law suits or budget. Plus, most Contracting Offices are already spread thin right now with work.

  Donald is in the business of construction. It will likely be done on budget and on time. That's his expertise. the reason why government projects are often blown up on funds and late is because politicians don't know what they are doing
• Commander of Awesome

  

  Spock;1834279 wrote:Donald is in the business of construction. It will likely be done on budget and on time. That's his expertise. the reason why government projects are often blown up on funds and late is because politicians don't know what they are doing

  lol so untrue it's funny.
• like_that

  

  CC doesn't understand how federal contracting works. I wouldn't expect anyone to know, but don't try and pretend you know why it takes awhile.
• Heretic

  

  Spock;1834279 wrote:Donald is in the business of construction. It will likely be done on budget and on time. That's his expertise. the reason why government projects are often blown up on funds and late is because politicians don't know what they are doing

  I'm mind-boggled by how anyone could legitimately not feel shame at being as ignorant as you tend to be on virtually every single thing you type on a daily basis.
• Automatik

  

  Elementary gym class dude.
• QuakerOats

  Dizzying first week .........no more business as usual in DC; great to see.
• QuakerOats

  http://video.foxnews.com/v/5298360758001/?#sp=show-clips
  
  Bob Nardelli telling it .......optimism never higher now that we have a business friendly prez
  
  
  
  MAGA
• Spock

  

  like_that;1834328 wrote:CC doesn't understand how federal contracting works. I wouldn't expect anyone to know, but don't try and pretend you know why it takes awhile.

  oh
  
  I know why it takes awhile. "Federal" contracting is the problem. Outside of the DC beltway things are done differently and more efficient
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;1834262 wrote:It is a defense project; like buying planes and ships to patrol borders. You will figure out. Good luck.

  Defense handles enemies.
  
  I really don't think you can call a wall "to keep out the illegals" defense.
• QuakerOats

  Well, we know terrorists cross the border along with criminals and drug dealers.
  
  Yeah, its defense.
• QuakerOats

  Surging numbers as the Trump Train rolls on...
  
  
  [h=2]Trump Approval Index History[/h]
  

  Date	Approval Index	Strongly Approve	Strongly Disapprove	Total Approve	Total Disapprove
  26-Jan-17	+13	44%	31%	59%	41%
  25-Jan-17	+9	42%	33%	57%	43%
  24-Jan-17	+9	42%	33%	57%	43%
  23-Jan-17	+4	39%	35%	55%	44%
  20-Jan-17	+2	38%	36%	56%	44%

  [/FONT][/COLOR]
• like_that

  

  Spock;1834346 wrote:oh
  
  I know why it takes awhile. "Federal" contracting is the problem. Outside of the DC beltway things are done differently and more efficient

  Do explain then. Tell us how Trump will bypass federal contracting procedures. I will wait.
• Commander of Awesome

  

  Thinking more about Trump's wall plan, I am trying to understand the economics behind this. Doesn't that just make things more expensive for us/we pay for the wall? For example, Mexico sells an avocado to the US for $1, grocer sells it for $2. With 20% tariff, Mexico sells it to us for $1.20, grocer either sells it to us for $2 and makes $0.20 less or sells it to us for $2.20. Am I understanding this correctly?
• gut

  Commander of Awesome;1834412 wrote:Thinking more about Trump's wall plan, I am trying to understand the economics behind this. Doesn't that just make things more expensive for us/we pay for the wall? For example, Mexico sells an avocado to the US for $1, grocer sells it for $2. With 20% tariff, Mexico sells it to us for $1.20, grocer either sells it to us for $2 and makes $0.20 less or sells it to us for $2.20. Am I understanding this correctly?

  Yeah, this is pretty dumb. Taxes are almost always passed on to the consumer. But even if not, the tarrifs [equally on all goods, if I read correctly) come from the company, which I'm guessing in most cases is a US corporation. Why the company MIGHT pay instead of the consumer is substitute goods not subject to the tariff (which prevents the grocers from selling it to you for $2.20).
  
  The spin [which we might call alternative lies] will be he's punishing the companies for having jobs in Mexico, and if that causes them to relocate back to the US then Mexico would be "paying" indirectly.
• gut

  Even if just for a day....would love to see Twitter suspend Trump's account.
  
  Surely if antagonizing a single, precious snowflake is grounds for suspension, then what about an entire country?
• like_that

  

  gut;1834428 wrote:Yeah, this is pretty dumb. Taxes are almost always passed on to the consumer. But even if not, the tarrifs [equally on all goods, if I read correctly) come from the company, which I'm guessing in most cases is a US corporation. Why the company MIGHT pay instead of the consumer is substitute goods not subject to the tariff (which prevents the grocers from selling it to you for $2.20).
  
  The spin [which we might call alternative lies] will be he's punishing the companies for having jobs in Mexico, and if that causes them to relocate back to the US then Mexico would be "paying" indirectly.

  Yeah this is bad Trump, and any Republican that is ok with this is pretty much turning a blind eye. They would rip Obama for this and they should. We don't need FDR protectionism. Gotta hope this is just a threat and Mexico backs down.
• gut

  like_that;1834433 wrote:Yeah this is bad Trump, and any Republican that is ok with this is pretty much turning a blind eye. They would rip Obama for this and they should. We don't need FDR protectionism. Gotta hope this is just a threat and Mexico backs down.

  He's playing this just like he would in a negotiation where he has leverage. And it's not going to work that way here, because Mexico knows he can't unilaterally wield that perceived leverage.
• Heretic

  

  like_that;1834433 wrote:Yeah this is bad Trump, and any Republican that is ok with this is pretty much turning a blind eye. They would rip Obama for this and they should. We don't need FDR protectionism. Gotta hope this is just a threat and Mexico backs down.

  Which I can't personally see happening, since that would be the president of Mexico essentially saying, "Yes Sir, Mr. Trump! We were stupid not to listen to Big Brother America and now we'll gladly pay for you to have a wall to keep our filthy people away from your superior country!!!!" And since this stupid shit is in pure posture mode ("They will" We won't" "THEY WILL" "GFY"), that's not likely.
• gut

  Heretic;1834436 wrote:Which I can't personally see happening, since that would be the president of Mexico essentially saying, "Yes Sir, Mr. Trump! We were stupid not to listen to Big Brother America and now we'll gladly pay for you to have a wall to keep our filthy people away from your superior country!!!!" And since this stupid shit is in pure posture mode ("They will" We won't" "THEY WILL" "GFY"), that's not likely.

  What if this is the "long con" to rip up NAFTA?
  
  I can't see Trump being that smart and manipulative, but......
• BGFalcons82

  

  O-Trap;1834348 wrote:Defense handles enemies.
  
  I really don't think you can call a wall "to keep out the illegals" defense.

  Did you know the Eisenhower Interstate System was designed and built for possible military use? Yes, Defense was very integral in the construction of roads.
• BGFalcons82

  

  gut;1834435 wrote:He's playing this just like he would in a negotiation where he has leverage. And it's not going to work that way here, because Mexico knows he can't unilaterally wield that perceived leverage.

  I agree with your first half of the post. We have a $60,000,000,000 annual trade deficit with Mexico. They are certainly a beneficiary of previous trade policy, previous economic aid, and NAFTA. Trump said all along during the campaign he was going to level the playing field since it has been out of the USA's favor for too long. Can't wait to see how he's going to make Mexico say, Uncle. I'm tired of losing. Aren't you?
• gut

  BGFalcons82;1834448 wrote:We have a $60,000,000,000 annual trade deficit with Mexico.

  I think trade deficits are a little more complicated than that. When dealing with a US parent, the profits accrue to the shareholders, and a part of that trade deficit is wages (maybe 20% in the case of manufacturing), with much of the rest being costs of imported components from other countries (including the US).
  
  So when you start talking jobs and wages, you are also implicitly talking about the competitiveness of US companies in a global marketplace. No one has come up with a good solution for the simple reality that a worker in India is as willing and able as you to do the job, for 1/10th the pay.