« The Art Of The Deal? | Main | Obama has overruled the pro-nusra faction in his government ... »

10 November 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"The MSM will further lose cachet." Geez, I didn't know they had any left at all, lol. Folks will say they were just not smart enough about their polling but my own opinion is that they used their own numbers in order to sway the election. I would have much preferred Ron Paul but Trump is fine with me.

Muzaffar Ali

President Trump, Zinda Baad.

Translation: Long Live President Trump!

John Minnerath

Well done Tyler.


Well done and hope you are as right here as on the election!

Any thoughts on China/South Asia?

Martin Oline

Very good, Tyler. Thank you for this. I'm impressed. I've read a lot of opinions here on what Trump will do but they are just wild a$$ed guesses in my opinion. How can anyone know what another will think or do.
You have obviously studied the man and the people around him and I find your analysis knowledgeable and insightful. I hope that you are correct.


"I imagine he knows very well who these people are and what they want."

Babylon 5 fan?


An addendum:

Trump needs do only two things to succeed.

- Not start a shooting war with Russia
- Follow the law

That's it. I include Obamacare under "Follow the Law" because it is currently held up by an unwieldy foundation of administrative diktats, groaning under its own weight. This is his power, his Trump card, if you will. Argue all you want to, but the reality is that while Trump is not responsible for Obamacare like the Dems are, he controls what will happen with it. Not Pelosi. Not Schumer. If he steps back and says "I'm just going to follow the law as written" that thing is DONE the next day in spectacular fashion.

To quote Dune: "The power to destroy a thing is absolute control over it." Remember that going forward.

He will give the Democrats one chance to pass what he decides, he will even bring them into the process to give them some investment in it, but if they try to stymie him he will let them have exactly what they want, and wait for the 2018 elections for them to get swept out in the tide. Because you know what? If he does let Obamacare collapse under its own weight, he will make sure that everyone knows its the Democrats causing them the pain because they refuse to fix it. So they will have two choices: save themselves or save the legacy of an unpopular president who will never run again.

I think we know how these creatures will run.

Dante Alighieri

Is it just me, or why has Trump fanboy blather so much in common with the Obama fanboy blather of 8 years ago? Disappointment is sure to come and will be in the same order of magnitude.


Why thank you, John.



I do not see the global hegemony in the South China Sea issue being the main thrust with China. The trade stuff is where the real issue is going to happen. Look for China to either phase in a currency valuation or face increasing tariffs on their goods.



No. Is that a reference then?



I understand the interplay between one's demeanor, and one's nature. The former can be flipped on a dime depending on circumstances. The latter though, is intrinsic.

Everything about Trump points to someone who is not simply the brash New Yawker that sells Trump Steaks and does pizza commercials. There is a depth to the man who presents that persona because he realizes it is better to have your faults overestimated and your virtues underestimated by friends and enemies alike.


One of Stephen Miller's intellectual godfathers is David Horowitz. It will be interesting to see how the anti-Zionist tone of this forum deals with this pro-Zionist strand in the Trump Administration.


Obama was a cipher that white liberals could project their fantasies on and had the entire MSM at his beck and call just to beat a tired Senator who wanted to give us 4 more years of Bush after two wars that were quagmires.

Trump defeated the two leading political dynasties in the country in his first national campaign while flying around on his personal 757 with 24k seat belts to win a 300+EV blowout with the entire media and political establishment.

Do you really think there is commonality here, or are you concern trolling?


Trump =/= Obama.

Come on, Dante. But if you insist, Obama never really gave a f--- about most Americans, while Trump cares about all of us.

And if he goes the normal way of disappointment prone to career politicians, His name, his brand and his rep is forever tarnished. The same things he spent his entire life building. Someone who worked tirelessly and accomplish a feat of this magnitude, is someone who simply does not regard the responsibility lightly.

You're welcome to wallow in whatever miserable reality you imagine.


I think there is much to be cautiously optimistic about the coming Trump administration. Trump has right general intuitions about many policy ideas, foreign and domestic, but being from outside the Beltway is both a boon and a curse. I didn't trust Obama much when he came in, and in retrospect, I am actually pleasantly surprised that he managed to outperform my expectations, even if he let down many who expected him to perform miracles. I remain convinced that Trump is Obama dressed in a different suit of clothes, but I'm also convinced that he is a man of both considerable ability and some principles who will try to do the right thing when he can. I don't expect him to perform miracles, but I think he'll be at least alright and, maybe, he will be able to do great things.

Whatever the case, he will be our president and I believe we have a moral obligation to treat him with the goodwill that he deserves.



As I read this I was laughing uncontrollably but not at you for writing it. What you are describing is one of the biggest Keynesians since FDR to occupy the White House.

You wrote:

' Right now, it seems health care reform and tax reform are on the table, as well as infrastructure. All things we can get behind. I cannot speculate exactly on what is planned, but I will make three broad points on these issues. Health care reform will not be the usual Republican giveaway to big business, but will have a decidedly populist bent while not being socialized for everyone. People don’t want Grandma not getting her check-up, but they also don’t like seeing people get hand-outs.'

What you are describing is single payer via payroll deduction much like Social Security. FDR couldn't have written it better himself (if you know anything of the history of Social Security). In this way everyone is invested in the system and everyone (or at least most - you take care of the rest through something like Medicaid) pays something into the system. Remember, Obamacare was a Heritage Foundation creation that used forced entry to attempt to solve the problem of cost shifting between freebies showing up in emergency rooms and the emergency rooms themselves. What you are describing is something similar to the Swiss system where everyone pays a percentage of their salary for health care and a basic policy. If you want additional coverage you purchase it privately much like seniors do today with Medicare and Medicare supplement policies. Democrats have arguing for something like this for ages and would have gladly implemented it if they could have gotten it through McConnell's filibuster. If I misunderstand what you have in mind by all means say so but I see no other way you get anything close to what you are talking about without some form of single payer.

It also helps solve one of the reason for decreased demand for other goods and services as medical costs for individuals is fixed giving them additional spending power in other areas.

You then continue:

'Look for large tax cuts to the middle class as well as corporate tax reform,'

Really? You could probably get Nancy Pelosi to sponsor the bill but certainly not McConnell or Paul Ryan. First of all we are by definition not an overtaxed society. If we were we would't be running deficits. Second, how will Mr. Trump pay for this? I thought all you Republican types were against deficits. This is a straight out Democratic type plan if the tax cuts are actually going to the middle class and what should be done in a recessionary time.

Please don't try to tell me the tax cuts will pay for themselves. This is an impossibility as is any type of 'dynamic' analysis that attempts to show any such thing.

Then you move on:

'infrastructure reform will include funding the wall. Trump will get this by slicing off the Populist Wing of the Democratic Party (Warren & Sanders) and giving them trophies to wave around as showing that they are “with the people”. These overtures have already been made, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he offered one or two them positions in his Administration.'

If all it takes is a wall Obama would have built it. You're not going to 'slice off' any part of the Democrats - populist or not - as they will all go along with this if the infrastructure spending is large enough. Trump could not only have his wall but airports all over the country named after him.

The rest of this is the usual alt-right talk about Soros, the Russians and so on. Even the immigration talk is small potatoes. Enforce existing law. Great but we're going to need a lot more people to do it as the democrats have been pointing out for years. Of course that is more money. How are you going to pay for it? However, I have no doubt if he leaves those already here alone if they aren't criminals even Mrs. Pelosi would sponsor a bill to give him money for chasing off a lot of the others.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you intend but I don't see how you get to some of your conclusions without describing one of the greatest Keynesians of all time. I would even vote for much of this. My biggest question is how do you get it through a Republican Congress and how do you pay for it?



I would have a hard time characterizing Miller as a "Zionist". I would say more he is a Nationalist, and a patriot. The fact he is Jewish doesn't seem to be a massive part of his identity.



I disagree on how you think things will turn out.

I will say in response to your last paragraph that you are operating under an old paradigm assuming that the Republican Party is still the three legged stool of Reagan's time. You are seeing a realignment now. This is like if I was arguing that the Democratic Party are the real raycists because Bull Connor.

Things have changed.


Tyler wrote:

'Argue all you want to, but the reality is that while Trump is not responsible for Obamacare like the Dems are, he controls what will happen with it. Not Pelosi. Not Schumer. If he steps back and says "I'm just going to follow the law as written" that thing is DONE the next day in spectacular fashion.'

Umm, Tyler no. You don't seem to have a basic understanding of economics. We have Obamacare because the business community wanted it. If you remember at the time because of the cost shifting insurance rates to businesses were rising rapidly and companies were cutting off insurance. Obamacare doesn't affect anyone who gets their health care from an employer other than the rates to their employers didn't go up as fast as before. That's what the business community wanted. Whether or not an individual doctor or other supplier wanted to cooperate with the new insurance rates was not something for the government to force. Trump is not going to let it be 'done' under any circumstances because he knows he would have to replace it with something else unless he wanted businesses to start dropping coverage for employees.

Please don't consider this a defense of Obamacare. I don't like it at all since I don't think it went far enough but I'm just pointing out Trump doesn't have as much freedom of action as you seem to think.



This is historical revisionism. People associate Obamacare with Obama and the Democrats. They shoved it through using parliamentary tricks, and a supine SCOTUS did mental gymanastics (it was a tax..but now its not!) to keep it in play.

This thing is held together with chewing gum and farts, and the gum is wearing out. We'll just see what happens, but he has exactly as much power as I think he does.

When you rule by administrative fiat, you die by administrative fiat.


Tyler wrote:

'I disagree on how you think things will turn out.'

Fair enough but you still have to pay for all this. Where will the money come from?

Then Tyler wrote:

'I will say in response to your last paragraph that you are operating under an old paradigm assuming that the Republican Party is still the three legged stool of Reagan's time. You are seeing a realignment now. This is like if I was arguing that the Democratic Party are the real raycists because Bull Connor.

Things have changed.'

No Tyler, they really haven't. It will take money - a lot of money to do all this. All of this could have been done without Mr. Trump and you aren't discussing anything that hasn't already been discussed. If the realignment is that a portion of the Republican Party has become Keynesian in its approach to government then there is really no realignment at all as Reagan was originally a Keynesian. His mistake was tax cuts were not the proper policy at that point in time.

I guess I really don't understand what you are saying. Please explain it to me. To me, I think I've seen all this before.



Yes, things have changed. You're arguing through assumption with nothing to back it up.

Economic growth and tax reform will pay for it, as he's said. I'm trying to be polite here, but don't be a badgering a--hole demanding a line by line plan for every dollar that we both know you're just going to handwave away.

David Lentini

Excellent comments that I'll be sure to share with my traumatized Clinton-voter friends and other melting snowflakes.

Keith Harbaugh

"People don’t want Grandma not getting her check-up,
but they also don’t like seeing people get hand-outs."

Yeah, that is always the line people use when they plump for expanded support for "health care".
But look at an example of what the poor insurance-paying citizen now has to pay for:
I'm old enough to remember when there were no such things as heart transplants.
When your ticker wore out, that was it. XXXX for you.
No need to pay millions for people who can't hold a job.
The idea of a "right" to heart transplants, and other super-expensive health care,
seems to me to be an oxymoron.
The problem is: How does American society pay for such expensive luxuries and stay economically competitive with societies that don't lavish such luxuries on their citizens?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad