Posted on 10/24/2015 10:06:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
ARE YOU crazy about Barack Obama? Do you fervently hope the next president of the United States will be as similar to the current president as possible?
Then Donald Trump may be the candidate for you.
Of all the candidates running for president, the one who most resembles the incumbent is not Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders or Martin O'Malley. To be sure, the Democrats' policy views largely overlap with Obama's. But when it comes to attitude and self-image, it's Obama and Trump who are birds of a feather.
Everyone knows about Donald Trump's bottomless narcissism; this is a man who has affixed the name "Trump" to everything from hotels to golf courses to cologne. Asked the other day which world leaders he would reach out to upon being elected, Trump replied that he wouldn't need to call anyone: "I think I'd probably have them call me."
But Obama's march to the White House also involved startling displays of self-glorification, from Greek-style columns to a triumphal foreign tour to his own official seal (complete with Latin motto). From the earliest days of his presidency, it was clear that Obama was deeply enamored of himself, and had no doubt that the rest of the planet was just as smitten. "I am well aware," he told the UN General Assembly, "of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world." He gifted the queen of England with an iPod that included his own speeches. Obama's addiction to the first-person singular pronoun — "I," "me," "my" — has been remarked on by many; he has even referred to "my military" and the troops "fighting on my behalf."
Anyone who finds such vanity attractive should relish the prospect of a Trump presidency. Trump, after all, never doubts his own brilliance. He's always the smartest person in the room; just ask him. Sound familiar?
"I'm a better speechwriter than my speechwriters," Obama told campaign aides in 2008. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I'll tell you right now that I'm gonna think I'm a better political director than my political director."
When a presidential candidate talks that way, what could possibly go wrong?
Cruz or lose.
Obama: "Make America Pay Again"
Well, actually, Hewlett and Packard DID start in a garage, as did Jobs and Wozniak. Gates and Zuckerberg, as well as Michael Dell, started in college dorm rooms. I used to buy from Michel Dell when he was selling parts as PCs Limited. I think he was already in med school, but it was a long time ago.
I figure those are “start from scratch” or pretty close thereto . But Gates’father was a prominent lawyer, and gave him a great upbringing and education. And lots of early legal advice. But not access to tens of millions in founding capital.
I don’t know about Ellison. Buffett’s career path was a little more regular path, starting as an investment salesperson, and slowly accumulating capital over time until he became invested in the textile company that eventually became the investment power house Berkshire Hathaway.
I don’t discount trump’s skills. They are considerable l. But a founding fortune in the tens of millions in the real estate business is not made “from scratch,” and a billionaire with such a start, and 45 years in which to do it, is not “self-made.” That’s all.
I already responded multiple times. Including directly to you. Cruz or lose.
And I mean that. If it’s not Cruz, then we will all have lost, and it won’t matter who is president.
‘I don’t know how he pays f o r his tax plan.’
You sound like a bleeding Democrat. They jack gov spending up on all their pet projects, and never ask how they’ll “pay for it.” Someone says, “tax cut,” and suddenly they’re running in circles, screaming hysterically about how they can’t “pay for it.”
Tax cuts generate revenue. Perhaps you recall Reagan’s tax cuts? Money poured into DC like rain in a hurricane. Yes, congress went on the mother of all spending binges. But the point is, cut taxes and the economy ROARS, increasing tax revenues hand over fist.
Good one. Put that up on Trump’s FB page. :-)
Understanding the politics of federal agencies, understanding the long term consequences of one’s actions, understanding the contours of the underlying political theory of the Constitution, the system of Constituonal checks and balances, the Declaration, natural rights as they developed from natural law, inhere t (inalienable) rights, Roman law, Greek law, the Roman Republic, the Greek democracies, the players on the world scene, understanding their history and culture. That’s a drop in the bucket of what is needed.
trump betrays none of this knowledge or skills.
I figured you’d bring them up.
Disney started in a garage too, and that may be a better example of “from scratch” since AFAIK there was very little in the way of outside help and their/his product was fairly defined from the get go.
HP not so much, they started as tinkerers. Apple, rags to riches to rags, they were in full death rattle when jobs came back with Apple clones kicking their ass. Gates, defined -some say stolen-product, but regardless building on that concept/product.
Still these examples are all comparing apples to bowling balls. I don’t think a Zuckerburg’s business experience would qualify him a CIC. Real estate development is a very different animal, especially at Trumps level.
Even a dynamic scoring only brings down the budget art cost of his tax plan from something like 1.3 trillion per year to 1 trillion per year.
Presided Reagan reduced rates much more modestly. You should read up on the Laffer Curve. If current rates are to high, a modest decrease may increase revenues. BUT if rates are lowered too much, the government will not optimize rates but set them lower than the rate that would produce the most revenue.
And that’s great. You may intend for the government to take a smaller bite of the ecenomy. Works for me. I’m a small government guy.
But the if you don’t provide concomitant budget cuts, you’ll run larger deficits.
trump talks about budget savings by buying more efficiently. The problem is that he’s put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid off the table. And he wants to beef up the military. The problem is, there isn’t enough of the budget left to make up the difference.
You’ve shown less than $200 billion. Good start! We have a deficit currently of about $500 billion. Only $300 billion to go. And then trump only wants to add a trillion more per year. That’s $1,000 billion. Per year. In a budget of roughly $4 trillion. While leaving Social Securit y and Medicare off the table. And the interest on the debt. And a beefed up military.
Okay. Right.
Buffetts, Gates’, and others beginning posts are way more modest, and their endpoints way past trump’s, and their holdings far more complex than trump’s, as well. Yet, I wouldn’t vote for any.
Is there any way that is mapped out that would make it possible for Cruz to reign in the colossal budget failure and make it work where Trump would simply fail?
Yeah, they might be. A power ball winner’s spread might be even more. But when we are talking “from scratch” in the real estate world, I’d like to know who has done it better in an apples to apples comparison.
And I agree, I wouldn’t vote for Buffett or Gates.
Trump? Hell yes.
To me, billionaireso look alike. I look at Warren Buffett. His holdings range from Berkshire-Hathaway Real Estate to Geico Insurance to a major stake in GE, a major stake in Coca Cola, to a major stake in Davita Healthcare.
Buffett is fond of saying, “don’t invest in what you don’t understand.” And he doesnt. He practices what trump preaches: he hires the best people. But he understands all these businesses. Well enough to know who can do the best job running a real estate company, running an insurance company (actually, he owns several of these), a manufacturing company, a beverage company, a healthcare company, each employing thousands, or tens of thousands, each with their own. logistical nightmares, goverment regulations, all the details of billion dollar companies.
He runs rings around trump.
But I wouldn’t vote for him.
Billionaires solve problems in markedly different ways that conservative constitutiinalists. We get a hint of this when we observe that both trump and Buffett are crony capitalists. For them, government is a force to coerce others to do what’s in the crony’s best interest. So, trump uses eminent domain, Buffett uses the loopholes related to the internal build-up of value in life insurance policies, or getting Congress to keep renewing the Ex-I’m Bank (we may win that one).
A constitutiinalist may come out against ethanol mandates because he recognizes their is no constitutional warrant for it, it’s market distorting, and it merely creates rents for everyone from corn farmers to processors and refiners. Or he might support them, understanding the coalitions he needs. The billionaire’s view is a little more crass: who is he buying. Which is similar to coalition-building, but not quite the same.
That’s not to say that a billionaire could have an avocation to throw study foundactions of the Constitution, to modern politics, to American history, to the foundations of our republic. But I’d l>keep to see a hint of that in a candidate. I do with Cruz. I did with Walker. I do with Jindal (but he’s a lost cause). I think I get that hint from Huckabee. But I sense that although he gets it, he actively acts against it. I think W had it. President Reagan had it. Bush, Sr., I think had it.
Billionaires usually don’t have it. Cobstitutionalists understand the nature of constitutional limits. Billionaires often become billionaires by refusing to accept limits. I want a president who understands the principle of limited, constitutional government.
I’m not sure there are budget fixes on the horizon. It may require that the crisis becomes more dire. But it will help us if we have had the discipline of a constutionalis t for a while before the crisis hits, if we relearn the ways of constitutional government. Otherwise,when the crisis hits, we will slide into tyrrany.
But Cruz is not proposing unprecedented tax cuts that will increase the deficit by a trillion, so maybe Cruz can make things better moderately. There are things that could be done to boost the economy that done include tax cuts of trump’s magnitude.
That is likely one of his problems, not proposing unprecedented tax cuts, and thinking tax cuts automatically cause increased deficits.
However, I would attribute that to you, not to Cruz, as he is better than that. But then, you know that. So, why the bullshit?
There are things that could be done to boost the economy that done include tax cuts of trump’s magnitude.
We in fact need cuts much greater than even what Trump suggests, including the dismantling of many, if not most of the alphabet agencies of the fed gov.
The time for moderation regards the current state of affairs is over.
Perhaps that is Trump's magnet?
You could eliminate EPA, Commerce, Labor, and a big hunk of welfare, and not close the deficit trump would create.
If you want to cut taxes that much (and I don’t have a problem in principle, I like the idea of a fundamentally smaller government, a government that takes a much smaller part of GDP).
But, to do it, we would need a complete overhaul of Social Security, and an eventua l move to private accounts. Or, suffer record breaking deficits. trump has said he’s going to “leave Social Security alone.” Interestingly, this is an area where he once was open to privatizing Social Security. But he has abandoned that position.
It will need to be done, or it will collapse under it's own weight. Every Ponzi scheme does.
Who has the force, the will power, and the lack of tether to "ptb" to push in that direction, not caring about their re-electability, or their further political careers?
Is there someone out there that is not joined at the hip to pacs that care more about their personal wealth than the destiny and course of this country?
Any one that is not drinking the power cup until they are drunk with it?
There is Cruz, and there is Trump. One of them must win, or this country is in deep doo doo, much deeper than currently, and off the precipice into the abyss.
Talking down either one lessens the chance of one of them grabbing the wheel.
Would be nice to have them both.
If not both, either one is ok, bad rapping either is foolish on the face of it, and on multiple levels.
And trump has already ruled it out. Unless you think he will change his mind. AGAIN.
So, in the end, while what a person might say at a given time is of import to get a glimpse of their current thoughts, much more important is do they have the strength of character, and personality, to get their way?
I don't like a few things Trump has said, I also have problems with some of Cruz's positions.
I would vote for either in a heartbeat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.