And of course all of these prototypes will contain ways to prevent tunneling underneath.

Sure people will find ways to cross/bypass the wall but better than no wall at all.

I suspect given enough time, money & technology, successful tunneling can be reduced quite a bit. I do think some sort of policy change, immigration reform (e.g. guest worker etc.) needs to be implemented also.

Yeah it will be great when we run out of disaster aid, but have a wall that slows people crossing the border a little.

You really think the cash albatross this will turn into will truly pay dividend while it potentially re-directs funds that are sorely needed for things like education, healthcare, infrastructure etc?

How about first focusing on the many illegals here who are actually helping the economy, rewarding those that are hard workers and good people looking for a better life and turn them into tax contributors.
Then taking some of that money targeted for the wall, going hard after the cartels in joint operations with the Mexican government. Legalizing Marijuana along the way to re-route millions of dollars spent on incarceration for non-violent drug offenders and infusing coffers with millions more through tax on sales. (Not the impact this will have on the opioid problem as well if MJ can be prescribed for pain by physicians)

Then institute immigration reform, again working with the Mexican government to allow easier work visa's for those that do not have criminal records and allow them a path to citizenship faster if they meet a strict, but fair criteria to be established, and so on. (This I agree with you on wholeheartedly)

Which plan do you think makes more sense economically for the USA both short and long term? A well thought out common sense plan or a impulsive, let's build a mega wall that will cost billions and take years to even make a dent in the problem, if ever. And not attacking you as we agree on the reform part 100%, but I just don't think the wall is a good solution be any stretch. If anything focus on known crossing hot spots more, maybe employ more drone surveillance, etc.

The eminent domain lawsuits will take a generation at least.

dola

OMG they're going to fuck up the debt ceiling and disaster relief. Apparently the current plan is to have the House pass disaster relief, have the Senate add the debt limit increase, then have the House pass it. No way that plan works.

Ignoring the limited impact a wall would have, unless Trump wins a 2nd term any wall has zero chance of ever being completed and is nothing more than a waste of time, money, and resources.

I don't see any way someone else is in the white house in 2020 and we decide to keep moving forward on it.

I actually think the wall has a greater chance of being built and than those suggested legislation/policies being passed, so let's get started on the wall and maybe the momentum gets other things done ... if not, we still have a 70B wall and annual maintenance of $170M.

Border Wall Could Cost 3 Times Estimates, Senate Democrats’ Report Says - The New York Times

I don't see it as either or, I see it as both wall and policy changes.

On using the funds to pay for more education and healthcare, sounds great in theory. Two questions - do you agree there is significant waste in education and healthcare? and do you think $70B will fix the problems? I think the problems are more systemic and it'll never be enough money.

Absolutely no doubt on both and the first order of business is start trimming internal fat. I can't speak directly on education admin at the federal level, but I can absolutely talk about healthcare. CMS is a morass of ineptitude at times and could run much more effectively if it were leaner. Audit contracts are thrown out to multiple third party vendors that cross streams and step all over each other auditing health plans.

Policy is often set based on opinions/special interest pressure and I swear they have people whose soul function is to make regs as convoluted as possible. I have been in the healthcare insurance industry for 28 years and can unequivocally say, that healthcare would be so much more affordable, easier to administer and work more efficiently if it was streamlined. And by that I mean a base set of regulations that had to be followed and a more competent implementation of monitoring and incentivizing.

A real quick example of this is Medicare sequestration, or MPRS reductions to payments.

Currently a 2% reduction is taken from payment by traditional Medicare from all providers/hospitals and by Medicare HMO's for non-contracted providers/hospitals. The HMO's can decide whether or not to apply the 2% to providers that contract with them and CMS wording makes it interpretable either way. This 2% was given an initial period of enforcement, which has since been extended and there is no word on how long currently.

So, the effects of this mean insurance companies have to configure their systems to deduct this, providers have to configure their systems to credit it, insured's have no idea what the hell it means and CMS has to create an audit category for that, which involves more expense.

Simple solution, just cut the fucking Medicare fee schedule by 2% for whatever period of time. The end result is the same, Medicare saves money, insurance companies pay less, the providers gets their write off and the insured is not responsible for this amount. And this is just one example LOL.

If you want to reduce healthcare costs in the US its simple - (1) allow the government to negotiate against drug companies as a single entity without its hands tied, if you believe in the 'free market' then the government as an entity is entitled to be part of it and get leverage in the same way large insurers do, (2) allow a single payer system like the rest of the damn world does and get far more for its buck.

Then you can worry about everything else once you've saved the huge amounts from those two shaving little pieces of the edges would be good ... but theres no point doing that before addressing the elephant in the room.

PS - Even Mr. Trump admits that socialised single payer systems are more sensible than what America has (he said as much when he met with the Australian PM).

Happy to see the oil companies profiting off the natural disaster. *sarcasm*

no, no, it's because they had to shut down production. so they lost money. like how every movie loses money.

You know what pisses me off even more? That you and me and regular hard working people that are anywhere from lower to upper middle class stepping up and donating money or blood or time or whatever.
But oil companies are profiting from this. What a load of crap. I guess X Billions of dollars isnt enough. I imagine there is a special place in Hell for oil company executives.

I don't know enough about the oil company supply chain but I would not be so sure they are making a profit out of this. The oil industry pipelines, refineries etc. must have taken a hit and the oil companies "may" be trying to offset the losses but not necessarily trying to make a profit of the storm.

The reason why I said "may" be is the increase in fuel caused by up/downstream from them? Is it the gas stations independents marking up the prices, is the world jacking up prices because they know the US is going to be temporarily refining less etc.

I don't know, my guess is all of the above. Anyone here in the industry?

It's all about refining capacity. A full 22% of US gasoline refining capacity is offline and it's going to be at least 2 weeks before it's back running at normal capacity. That will create a gap of supply for a while and the converse, a glut of oil that will be sitting on the sidelines not being refined. There's also a concern apparently that refiners won't rush to get back online and help drive prices up somewhat.

September gasoline futures are at the highest level and jumped 13.5% at the close Thursday. The highest in 2 years and October futures jumped nearly 8%.

Gasoline futures jump above $2, oil rallies amid Harvey-stoked shortages - MarketWatch

Little from column A, little from column B.

Gas stations are often not owned by the distributor, but rather franchised (kinda like Mickey D's). So price changes can depend on various factors. The franchisee's decisions play into it, the free market plays into it to a degree (gas stations in the same area may go up or down depending on their neighbors), and sometimes even state law is a factor.

In Wisconsin, gas is required to be sold at 6% over cost or 9% over wholesale, whichever is greater. That's intended to keep, say, Costco from selling gas at a loss to drive the competition out of business before they jack the price back up.

The other side of the coin is speculation, or what you referred to as 'the rest of the world.' OPEC and such can't unilaterally set high prices - if they say "okay light sweet crude is $150/barrel" and nobody buys it, then what they have is product they can't move.

If speculators see a profit opportunity, they might bid up futures contracts for oil, and that's where Exxon/Shell/etc see their increase.

Around here every station has been following QT's lead. Twice in the last week they made 20 cent jumps. The other stations stayed until the next morning before following suit.

Just follow the theme of this thread. Everything is a con

I think gas has gone up about .50 or .60 cents as of last Thu (last time I filled up).

It appears that North Korea has tested a thermonuclear device.

Eagerly awaiting what our President has to say in 140 characters.

Still doesn't understand his bully tactics won't work.

"South Korea is finding, as I have told them, that their talk of appeasement with North Korea will not work, they only understand one thing!"

Does it really matter at this point what he says? I mean a month ago he drew a line in the sand and NK jumped across it.

North Korea gonna North Korea

They skipped across it carrying flashing neon signs and built a house on the other side.

I'm just trying to think of a best-case scenario for how this ends up playing out, and I've got nothing. And that's even before considering the person in charge.

The answer is what it has been all along, deterrence. It's not satisfying in a we win kind of way, but it will probably work and it's the only path that doesn't end with lots of deaths.

Trump, unfortunately, isn't the guy to pull this off but Mattis at least seems to understand the obvious, so maybe he can make sure we muddle through.

edit: Trump needs to lay off the belligerent bluffing. Now he's threatening to cut off all trade with countries that trade with NK. We aren't going to embargo China and everyone involved knows it.

His supporters are eating it up and that's all that matters to him.

Trump is the guy who killed it in single player and then talked a bunch of shit in multi player, got his ass handed to him and now feels cheated.

Trump just doesn't seem to be the type of guy to bluff about this.

This, of course, is on the highest order of chicken and consequences are significant, but I bet there's going to be some significant action/escalation in the next 3 years unless China reigns in NK or the crazy kid backs down.

(If anything, to distract from domestic problems/investigations).

Whether its bluffing or not, Trump seems like the type of guy to randomly say shit on twitter based on nothing with no effort or intent to follow through if its not going to make him popular. Hasn't he already gotten caught "bluffing" with NK by making bold statements already? Fire and Fury?

Fortunately, he also seems to be the sort to bluster about something and get distracted by squirrels.

He bluffs all the time. Happens when one doesn't know the definition of truth

We have very different interpretations of Trump's behavior.

Last year we exported 116 billion to China and imported 463 billion. That doesn't include all of the U.S. companies that do business in China. We aren't going to cut that off. He's not even stupid enough to plunge us into a depression and have that be his legacy.

Yes, he is a lot of bluster but he is unpredictable and does not follow norms of a typical Dem/Rep president. Chances for miscalculation & misinterpretation (on both sides are relatively high).

If there is one presidency in the past 25 years, its the Trump presidency where the highest chance of something militarily will happen.

Although I've said that I don't see NK striking first, all bets are off if an oil embargo is put in place. I don't see anything good coming from that.

I'm really interested to see what role Russia takes going forward, because it feels like this might be the event that sees them start to play their hand. I think the history books are going to have a whole lot to say about Russia's role in the current US' political shitstorm.

I think he gave himself more of wiggle room for interpretation than Obama's red line.

Yeah, we can argue over the semantics of whether he's "bluffing." (I mean Ian my world, using the word "bluffing" would imply that there was actual thought and strategy to his "fire and fury" foolishness as opposed to him just talking out of his butt.) But the reality is that he has probably already reached the point where other foreign leaders are ignoring his threats and tweets. NK certainly has.

Nope.


North Korea Says It Has Tested Hydrogen Bomb That Can Fit on ICBM - NBC News

Part of deterrence is a credible threat of annihilation. Mattis has also made it clear that diplomacy is always available and always the best option.

Trump, on the other hand, wants to show who's boss so people will say he's a winner.

There's a certain amount of "this is the message the President wants promulgated" and there's only so much he can do to publicly mitigate that without drawing Trump's ire at being "managed."

That said, the reality is? Any military response would be overwhelming, effective, and Pyhrric beyond all meaning.

Even assuming shite incoming detection capabilities on North Korea's part, I don't see China completely abandoning them, and if you think China would blithely sit back following a retaliatory (or pre-emptive) nuclear detonation on their borders, you might wish to re-examine that belief.

Any conventional response would result in the whole can of whoopass being opened on Seoul.

I mean, North Korea as an extant polity would have its days numbered, absolutely.

And you'd like to think Kim is rational enough to realize that.

But the other side of the M.A.D. coin is that it only works if both sides understand and believe what the other is capable of. For all their bluster, I do think North Korea knows what the United States is capable of.

Trump's rhetoric, on the other hand, suggests that he doesn't understand "costs" from a military perspective. I'm not just talking about North Korea, either. There's his bluster about a secret plan to destroy ISIS and knowing more than the generals about how to do it. There's his bluster about Iran (which I think in large part is bound up in "this is a thing Obama did and I need to completely eradicate his legacy regardless of merit because he was mean to me at the White House press dinner"). There's North Korea. There's his rhetoric regarding Venezuela and military options. There's the allegation that he asked words to the effect of "why even have a nuclear arsenal if we can't use it whenever we feel like it?"

And so on.

And that's dangerous in the context of M.A.D. Because if one side understands the ramifications and the other doesn't, that unbalances the nuclear deterrent.

Yep.

Surely I couldn't have been the only one confused by Reality Winner being an actual person's name.

welcome to three months ago: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...&id=1123680038

So in regards to Trump rescinding DACA.

Is there no path for the people affected to become legal immigrants or citizens?

I've got a guy working for me that fell under DACA. He took it one step further and after spending $20,000 on a lawyer, he has a two year visa.

I should also add that he is married to an American citizen. Sounds like he needs to be married for three years after getting his visa before he can apply for citizenship. Wait.... his visa is only for two years? With DACA rescinded, he may not be eligible to get his visa extended.

Not unless Congress makes one in the next six months.
DACA never changed the legal status of citizens, just "deferred action" on their illegal status. With that protection gone, the vast majority fall under the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which kicks anyone illegally here a year or more out of the country for a decade. As far as Congress passing legislation to amnesty Dreamers goes, what do YOU think the odds are that a Republican Congress will sign into law the citizenship of 800,000 new citizens who will almost certainly vote Democrat?

Also why they won't ever give D.C. the two Senators and 1 Representative it deserves.

Or Puerto Rican statehood.

Shouldn't Puerto Ricans want statehood first?

97% in favor as of the last referendum in June.

He is the BEST negotiator!!!

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue!"

A referendum that was heavily boycotted

Meaning "This will pacify my base for a few months and stop Texas and friends from suing the government. Then in 6 months I'll blame congress for not getting anything done." And we have ACA repeal the sequel.

Sounds painful. Was he okay? He didn't break anything, did he?

But the 2012 vote, though complicated, suggests support for statehood.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. Every Puerto Rican could call for statehood and the GOP will just ignore the issue.

PredictIt has Trump as a 45% chance to be the GOP nominee in 2020.

Is it me, or is that really low? He's shown no sign of not wanting to run. And the GOP establishment lacked the will/ability to keep him from being the nominee when he was the outsider. Now that he's the incumbent, that task is immeasurably harder. He is the establishment.

Yeah, the Mueller investigation is out there, but however that comes out, it would still require Congressional GOP buy-in to remove Trump, and nothing I have seen makes me think that they are willing to take that step.

I can see an argument that he's around 45% to win in 2020. But to be the nominee? Seems like an emotional, not analytical, price.

I have him at a 55% chance of dropping dead of a heart attack before 2020.

Hmm. That's an angle I had not considered. He's certainly the least healthy president in my lifetime.

He already can't get anything done and DACA is the latest thing causing GOP backlash against him. If anyone semi competent goes for the nomination then 45% will be high.

The more interesting prediction would be whether or not he replaces Pence.

Not according to him.

He does seem remarkably healthy for a 71-year old considering what we know about his diet and exercise habits. I mean, he looks awful, but he seems to get around OK, and plenty of 71-year olds look a lot worse. But surely problems are brewing for him.

I think it's quite possible that under the Trump administration my tax rate will lower, many Confederate statues will be removed, Obamacare will be improved and the DREAM act will pass.

Hillary who?

The stress of the job certainly seem like they could speed up physical issues or dementia (which a lot of people seem to speculate about though maybe they confuse the insane stuff we see due to narcissism as dementia).

There has to be a non zero chance that he steps down after 1 term in a huge blustery way blaming everyone around him on the way out, calling it a crap job that no one should want, claiming that he's accomplished more in one term than anyone else could accomplish in three (despite blaming others for failings at the same time, it'd be grand).

How damning will the Mueller investigation have to be to get the GOP to remove him? Presumably that's non-zero as well.

2018 elections swinging both house and senate are in play too but again, feels low.

Having someone else run against him in a primary and win? That sounds like the dream of someone on the far left who doesn't see reality, at least for now. So far, the right is all talk. Maybe that changes if things get even worse, but for now I'm not buying it as a possibility. Trump's base is pretty strong and unwavering and they hate a lot of other republicans and see them as liberals.

Assassination is a non-zero possibility as well.


But yeah I agree with Albion in the end, I'd probably put his odds of being the GOP nominee at 60-65% after combining all of the above.

I'd put renomination closer to 75-80% right now. If the GOP gets hammered in the midterms, then you look at it again.

Not to mention that I'm sure a doctor daring to give him advice will just piss him off.

And of course:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/politi...ise/index.html

PredictIt says...

Trump .45
Pence .17
Cruz .06
Kasich .05
Rubio .05
Haley .04
Ryan .04
Sasse .03
Cotton .02
Paul .02

834,191 (44.4%) voters out of 1,878,969 voted for statehood.

But that ignores what was voted upon.


A majority wanted something besides the territorial agreement that they currently have, whether statehood or independence, either of which would require congressional approval.

His doctor assures us he's in great shape!

Most did not want statehood. I'm not sure how my post ignored anything. A sizable number of people wanted just a modification of current arrangements and left the ballot blank on the second question.

Right, presumably the minority of people that voted to remain a territory.

House leaders and the White House have agreed on a deal for Harvey aid/FEMA/Small Business Admin being restocked. Far as I know the border Wall was not part of the deal.

Seems like funding/debt limit were also agreed to be extended through December.

Good.

Eh, kicking the can down the road is hardly an accomplishment.

For this Congress, it's like sending a man to Mars.

:D

Now that President Bannon is out of the picture, we get President Pelosi??? ;)

For all of those (DACA) that are concerned about your status during the 6 month period, you have nothing to worry about - No action!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 7, 2017

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politi...aca/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politi...aca/index.html

Trump Reassures Dreamers They're Safe After Nancy Pelosi Asks Him To

Heh. Another angle on Trump and his new BFF.

Donald Trump Gives Nancy Pelosi Both His Twitter Feed and His Support for the DREAM Act

Yeah, I was talking to SackAttack, and we both thought while it probably wouldn't last, it would be a good time to stock up on popcorn.

That awkward few minutes after the ellipses when we're not sure if the President Of The United States is about to announce via Twitter that he is switching Parties.

Republicans, sorry, but I've been hearing about Repeal & Replace for 7 years, didn't happen! Even worse, the Senate Filibuster Rule will....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 8, 2017

No. Clearly the lights just cut out, and the Undertaker's theme just popped on.

He's really hammering established Repubs...I just read Charlie Dent is not running...so PA (where I'm really from) is going to possibly have a change in some leadership.

It's kind of weird but he had the chance to do a ton of good stuff. He has a core of supporters that would support him if he turned full communist. So all he had to do was pick issues with decent support on either side and win.

Trump probably had a better chance as putting together universal healthcare than any President ever.

He's such a significantly flawed individual, but I think with his support base if he can just shift away from the dumb stuff, he can accomplish a lot. For example, we continue to have these ridiculous fights over the debt ceiling and that's just a self-inflicted political issue that doesn't even need to exist. It likely ends up as a greater source of pork because people require projects for their vote on the issue. I think you could pass Single Payer with Trump in office

There is no pivot.

This is who Trump is and will always be.

Its nice to have someone other than Trump be an idiot in Washington for a brief moment.

The debt ceiling is just dumb stuff? Doesn't need to exist? Where exactly does all this money come from?

From the budget bills or continuing resolutions that fund the government at a deficit and ensure that the ceiling will be reached. It is dumb to say we agree to spend this money, but a few months later, we will have to agree again to spend this money.

The argument about the deficit should happen when the initial budget bill is making the rounds, not when we are in danger of defaulting on payments we've already agreed to make.

It's superfluous/redundant.

Think of it like this: the debt ceiling, if it were an actually useful tool, would prevent Congress from appropriating funds it didn't have the ability to spend. Kinda like how your card will get declined if the purchase you're attempting to make exceeds your credit limit or bank funds, right?

But that isn't how the debt ceiling works. Congress is allowed to appropriate the money regardless of that debt ceiling; all raising it does is determine whether they can borrow the money to pay for the spending they've already authorized.

Try that one with your bank. Go out and buy a $10k TV and then tell the bank "sorry, my debt ceiling has been reached, I'm not going to pay you." See how well that goes over.

But that's fundamentally what the debt ceiling does. It's a vestigial Congressional function that hasn't served any real purpose until the last 8 years when Congressional Republicans have weaponized it to hold the full faith and credit of the United States government hostage unless Democrats agree to repeal Obamacare or defund Planned Parenthood or some fucking thing.

And now Democrats are poised to weaponize it, albeit in a slightly different way ("we both know your caucus is incapable of responsible governance, so if you want our votes to help you avoid embarrassment...") and for different aims.

Although, really, it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter whether Congressional formalization of the DACA program or the stabilization of the health exchanges are more noble goals than defunding women's health. The point is the same - it's an obscure legislative tool with no real raison d'être except, in the last ten years, to be used for legislative hostage-taking.

Yes this is exactly the purpose of the debt ceiling.


Exactly. The bank won't let you buy the 10K TV but for some reason we let the federal government keep doing it. State governments can't do this. Everything now is essential and even though I am phiosophicaly libertarian I am not saying get rid of welfare or get rid of social security like Ron Paul but yeah maybe we do need to severely cut back "defense" spending so we can actually come in under budget or have money for unexpected events like in Houston or Florida.


I will leave this one to you on the GOP "manhandling" starting in the least 8 years. But again this is a complete failure by both parties to stop spending on anything...

2006: ‘The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.’

I totally agree. The problem is nobody is going to vote out their party for not doing that so instead we have a 20+ trillion dollar debt. In the end who will come collect on it? I guess nobody but as we saw in 2006 once a chain of events starts it really snowballs fast. This $20,000,000,000,000 is going to catch up to some generation. Maybe not ours, maybe not our children's/grandchildren's but it will. World history says we are foolish to think otherwise.

And my 12 pack of diet coke is not $6 because of "trucking costs". Inflation effects everyone.

Is it though? That number will keep getting bigger, and income will keep getting bigger. If the govt is happy with the debt to income ratio, then it'll keep pace with that. Yes, they could find a way to close it, like oh I don't know, raising taxes, tightening budgets and paying it down.

Or, they could just do what Reagan started, where they spend now, on the hopes that income will keep pushing up higher and higher to justify today's expenses with tomorrow's money.

We saw how that strategy worked out in 2008/09. Where the govt had to spend a bunch of new money to stabilize the economy because they had already spent the money they were supposed to have for such things. Obama gets a bad rep for the deficit increase those years, but the wheels for it were set in motion long before, and if some kind of philosophical change isn't accepted, the next time will be multiples worse.

Once that cat was out of the bag, how could both parties not continue to do it? Look at the legacy that Regan is remembered by, had Bush I not raised taxes and made an attempt shore the whole thing up, Reagan might be remembered as the president who ruined the economy. Instead, it's Bush who is seen as the president who dropped the ball.

There's libertarian far right economic thinking (let it all blow up) that would probably cripple the country. I don't subscribe to that. But nothing can be cut? I get somebody in Seattle/San Diego/St. Louis is going to lose a job if we build one less fighter jet. But something can be cut there just aren't enough non career politicians who will go against their home districts to do anything about it.

The debt doesn't matter. Interest payments on the debt matter, and right now those are manageable. I'd still like to see us eliminate the structural debt, as there's no good reason to run hundreds of billions in debt during good economic times. We aren't near a debt crisis and inflation is below 2%. The debt shouldn't be our top concern.

The Missouri state senator that called for Trump to be assassinated, was censured. There werent enough votes to expel her. Of course votes went down racial lines. She is black.

Next up is the white state senator that said the people that vandalized a confederate monument should be hung from a tree.

Meanwhile, Russia out there weaponizing social media...

How Russia Turned Americans into Weapons in Its Information War | Vanity Fair