The First 100 days

If you live petrified of the possibility of a negative outcome, then you will never accomplish anything. Ever. After about a year of getting squeezed further by Trump, the NoKos have extended an olive branch. We have no choice but to respond. There is no other option. If nothing comes of it, then nothing comes of it. But this is not the time to be suffering from analysis paralysis.

 

Of course, that's the same kind of rhetoric people like Ben Rhodes used about Iran. If it it can fit in a couple of paragraphs on a message board, it isn't analysis paralysis. What I presented are pretty sensible and basic questions and concerns. If we make some big move without answering them, that's stupid and reckless.

 

I betcha there will be no part of the agreement that includes shipping them pallet loads of cash.

 

Probably not, but I'd rather see that than something that actually weakens our defense posture in the area. I'm not saying the deal will necessarily have that, but that's the kind of thing I'll be looking for. Honestly, what I think would be interesting is if a deal is made that drives a wedge between China and North Korea - a little like we did with China and the Soviet Union back in the early '70s.

By the way, be prepared for the media and Democrats to start crapping on North Korea and saying that no deal can be made with them. Obviously, they care more about denying Trump a potential political victory than about fixing the North Korea problem.

 

I didn't actually posit either of the items you suggested. My argument is more nuanced than that. BUT since you asked....

2. Oh yes. I feel much better about the government taxing and distributing the money to schools, infrastructure, SSI, etc. It is incredibly different because 10 million people will get $1,000 more to buy food and pay for childcare instead of 1 guy getting $100MM more to buy a new yacht and a 5000 sq foot penthouse.

3. You having EXTREME wealth doesn't necessarily effect me negatively (there are actually many positives to having very wealthy people). a.) the legal/ethical pursuit of wealth has propelled our country further and faster than any previous country/system/society. b.) the wealthy buying high end crap is what eventually allows a market to be established to take that crap to the middle class and eventually the lower class.

However, taking that same extreme wealth and redistributing it via better schools, better care for elderly, better care for foster kids, etc would have tremendous positive benefits.

As I said before, I don't have a problem with extreme wealth IF the person holding it did the work/investment to get it on their own. The Gates', Buffetts', and Zuckerbergs' of the world don't bother me. The Ivankas', Paris Hiltons', Gates's Jr's, Buffett Jr's etc that receive UNEARNED millions (if not billions) bother me immensely.

 

Fearing Trump will make the same mistakes with the NoKos that Obama made with the Persians is anything but sensible. In fact, the single closest thing we have to certainty of outcome with regard to this matter is that Trump will not be Obama.

 

I didn't say he would make the same mistakes. However, just as with the Iran deal, I'm going to judge any deal made by the merits, not by who's making the deal. I'm not going to say, "well Trump's making the deal so it must be good," nor will I say, "well Trump's making the deal so it must be horrific." I'll let the countless partisan hacks of the political world do that.

Nevertheless, it kinda sounds like you've made up your mind on the hypothetical deal.

 

You got me there. I must admit I made up my mind in advance that it would be a good thing if the NoKos de-nuclearized. You are amazing

 

Sorta like how Iran won't have a nuclear weapon?

 

Did anyone really ever believe that?

 

No, but it sounds like you would have if Trump had made that deal.

 

Everyone wants Iran and North Korea to denuclearize. The question is what will we give up to get them there. With Iran, it was clearly to give their $4B back that was frozen assets we've been holding since 1979.

What do you think Kim Jong Un will demand? Anyone thinks he gives up a single nuke without the US vacating the Korean Peninsula? It's good we are ready to negotiate. This negotiation has paused their missile testing for now.

 

If you think Trump would just hand over Billions to the Iranians like Obama did then you are beyond my ability to help. May God have mercy on your soul.


ps - Reflexive auto-like noted on your permanent record as an excited board waits with baited breath for the other one to appear

 

LOL. I'm not saying what Trump will or won't do. I'm just saying that I'm not going to assume it'll be great until I actually know what it is. How unreasonable of me. lol

 

Not a single person in the entire world is assuming that either. They have not even agreed on the details of the meeting yet. So, with all apologies to your mom, it does not make you special. You did not just invent a straw man, you created a straw universe.

 

To walk into the negotiation thinking the US won't have to give up anything of value for a deal is crazy. Until we know what that item(s) is then I'll withhold any judgement. I do think NoKo doesn't give up anything unless the US pulls out of the Korean Peninsula.

I never thought the Iran deal was bad. We gave up $4B of frozen assets (frozen since 1979) and get inspections which so far have been going well per the IAEA and US Energy Dept. reports. None of our defensive capacity was diminished.

 

Something of value? Sure. I'd be ok with putting sanctions relief on the table or some economic and/or humanitarian help. If they insist on leaving the peninsula, we should walk away from the table.

Keep in mind that this won't be the first nuclear deal with North Korea. It'll be the second. Should we really give them much benefit of the doubt? I'd give them a second chance, but pulling out of South Korea has real and substantial implications on our defense position. Until there's a final settlement of the Korean issue (meaning the abrogation of the armistice agreement and its replacement with a permanent peace treaty), we shouldn't even significantly reduce our forces. And until there's a unified (and free) Korean republic, we shouldn't consider a complete withdrawing of forces.

The big thing that Iran got was $100B in sanctions relief. Was the deal "bad?" I lean bad but not overwhelmingly so. We had no leverage. The EU (Germany) wanted a new export market and knew that if things really got ugly the US would defend them (and therefore no big downside to Iran getting a nuclear weapon), so they were getting soft on the sanctions anyway. Furthermore, everybody knew that we weren't going to use military force to stop a nuclear program.

However, I didn't crap in my pants over it like some people did, because I just don't take these kinds of deals very seriously in the first place. Iran's a big place. Legally and logistically, inspectors can't go everywhere or even close to everywhere, and Iran can simply continue their program (which they denied existed anyway) in places where they know inspectors can't go. It's just not that hard. (If it was, then North Korea wouln't have a nuclear weapon today.) Furthermore, they don't even need a nuclear program to get nuclear weapons. Russia and its stockpiles of nuclear weapons, uranium, etc. are just on the other side of the Caspian Sea. Putin can arm Iran with nukes anytime he wants.

By far the biggest problem I have with the Iran deal is that it impacts our public discourse. Large numbers of Americans and politicians (yes, Democrats) talk about Iran as though they're not going to get a nuclear weapon and won't be a nuclear threat because of this deal. That's delusional, and it's a problem because it could lead to political support to weaken our position in the area. I hope that never happens, but that's my biggest objection to it.

 

Well, except perhaps you, and you hassled me for saying I'd want to see the details of it first.

 

We are supposed to be a meritocracy. We are supposed to be a country that provides equal opportunity and rewards individual effort. Getting a lucky-sperm-grant is contrary to those values. We should each produce and be compensated in relation to the value and production we create.

So the government takes money and gives it to someone and you think that fits with your meritocracy argument? What exactly did the people receiving the distribution do to earn those funds? Despite what you wrote, you support a system closer to communism rather than a meritocracy.

It would benefit some people in the short term, but are you smart enough to see the negatives associated with taxation and redistribution? Your altruism sounds really sweet in theory, but we actually live in a world with incentives and constraints.

So you don't have a problem with someone earning "extreme" wealth, but you have a problem with how they spend their wealth. If they decide to give their "extreme" earned wealth to someone in their family, or the church, or a trust that benefits their cat, you want to take 55% of it away and give it to others that, curiously, also didn't earn the "extreme" wealth. Got it. Great argument.

 

Dear Mr. D, wherever you are. I write to inform you oububba has hacked your account and is posting nonsense in your name. Time to change PWs.

 

Here is an example of redistribution at work, and much of this redistribution was done voluntarily. Those damn incentives and constraints among the players just keep getting in the way of government being accountable and effective.https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/19/schooled

 

Guys from Mobilhoma aren't smart enough to be able to hack someone's account. OUBubba is a lot of things. A hacker isn't one of them. That's like an illiterate bricklayer being an insider trader or securities fraudster.

 

Senator Corker...too little too late. To lament the cost to the deficit now when you had information that the tax cuts would add to the deficit before the vote is disingenuous.

 

Corker must have been asleep the last 16 years. The last two presidents doubled the national debt. Trump is unfortunately going along the same path.

 

Not that it has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming law, but a balanced budget amendment is being considered this week. It should pass so the usual charade will end, but that won't happen. It's sad, because that truly would change the game. It's harder to spend big if tax increase are always coming with the new spending.

 

Gee thanks for the insight Lance ....

I would suggest the entire post-WW2 been one giant blob of political uncertainty. Look at all the large, powerful unaccountable, quasi-governmental global establishment groups which popped up post WWII which constantly attempt to impose their political will on the rest of the world. They are all unaccountable. They use the "uncertainty" as their excuse all the time. In particular are the groups Lance loves the most -- the UN, the IMF, the EU, the ECB, the Fed and so on.

 

Initial jobless claims have now held below 300,000 for 162 consecutive weeks, cementing the longest streak for weekly records dating back to 1967

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-we...0-000-for-longest-streak-on-record-1523536549

 

POTUS Trump directed Kudlow to reassess joining TPP. Trump delivering the proverbial PSYCH! to his supporters.