I need to show you a second quote from Omarosa on "Big Brother": "Don't get me wrong, Obama's administration was aggressive about deportation too... I've seen the plan. The roundup plan is getting more and more aggressive... He's a numbers guy. He wants to outdo his predecessors."
I have an old post about Trump the numbers guy, and this post would be a better post if I could dig it out of the archive. Since I can't, I'll just leave this post in "stub" form.
१३ फेब्रुवारी, २०१८
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६३ टिप्पण्या:
Numbers guys have integrity.
Restated: Trump’s a data and effectiveness guy. Practical. Common sense.
If the economy grows at 4-5% all our dreams will come true. Rising tide and all that .
Lidocaine is the loneliest number.
Land development is a lot about numbers.
President Obama was a number 2 of a guy.
Numbers guy who picked the right number: Electoral College over popular vote.
Thanks, Hill!
Hagar said...
Land development is a lot about numbers.
Yes. This number goes to the City Councilman's campaign. That number goes to the building inspector. Another number to the waste management company...
"Don't get me wrong, Obama's administration was aggressive about deportation too.
I'm crestfallen that a TV Person I never heard of repeats long-refuted talking points on an issue she knows little about.
Obama was not a numbers guy. He publically admitted he was not very good at math. I will always go with the numbers guy.
Numbers measure results. Trump wants results. Politics is the art of slandering opponents with Fake News narratives. But it still measures its results from Persuasion of voters that works by branding and kill shots.
By the way, what number did Trump pick for the national debt?
At the top level of politics, who isn’t a “numbers guy”? -willie
CJinPA said...
"Don't get me wrong, Obama's administration was aggressive about deportation too.
I'm crestfallen that a TV Person I never heard of repeats long-refuted talking points on an issue she knows little about.
2/13/18, 8:23 AM
Yes, Obama was more aggressive on cooking the books and reclassifying "Deportation" as those caught at the border and turned back.
By the way, what number did Trump pick for the national debt?
Probably: 20% - as in the size of the electorate that cares about it
Obama was a #s guy also --
LINK TEXT
Jesus was a 'numbers guy'.
I know because he told me.
“By the way, what number did Trump pick for the national debt?”
Based on what I read yesterday at least $3T dollars less over the next 10 years than what Congress has in mind. Best to direct that question to Ryan/Pelosi/McConnell/Schumer. They and their colleagues set the budget.
The numbers the left has to worry about are the generic poll numbers. They are worse for Democrats than 2014 right now.
"They and their colleagues set the budget." And DJT signed it.
Interesting maneuver, to call for cuts after you agree on a budget. Not sure where that's gonna go, if anywhere.
"Probably: 20% - as in the size of the electorate that cares about it." True.
But the bond market still might. In that case, other numbers come into play.
Some numbers care about us even if we don't care about them.
AllenS Hahaha!
If Trump is a "numbers guy," I guess that means he intends to bankrupt the nation...further. (After all, he must figure he bankrupted himself several times, so why not the country?)
"Don't get me wrong, Obama's administration was aggressive about deportation too... I've seen the plan. The roundup plan is getting more and more aggressive... He's a numbers guy. He wants to outdo his predecessors."
Trump is a business man so naturally he's a numbers guy, a bottom line guy. Trump gets the job done. That part about Obama is politically correct bullshit.
Sebastian: "Interesting maneuver, to call for cuts after you agree on a budget. Not sure where that's gonna go, if anywhere."
Yeah, Washington was all about fiscal responsibility until that Trump guy showed up.
And there is nothing funnier than a Stalinist like cookie pretending to care about govt spending.
Cookie,
Get back to me when Trump adds $10 trillion to the national debt, like your hero Obama.
The tweeter in chief loves numbers but the wrong ones as he heads the country into biggly deficits just like his casino businesses.
Robert Cook: "If Trump is a "numbers guy," I guess that means he intends to bankrupt the nation...further. (After all, he must figure he bankrupted himself several times, so why not the country?)"
Obama's adde $10T to the debt in 8 years.
Number of lefty complaints about that spending over those 8 years: 0
Lots of us are numbers guys.
Sebastian said...
You may be right. The GOP has always played Frugal Daddy on the debt and got nothing but grief for it. Even Wall Street, I think, has trended toward Democratic candidates in recent years. I think Trump noticed there is little political return on that investment.
There has to be a day of reckoning, eventually, but every year it doesn't the budget hawks have a tougher sell.
R/V: "The tweeter in chief loves numbers but the wrong ones as he heads the country into biggly deficits just like his casino businesses"
Number of R/V complaints about debt from 2008-2016? 0
But only 0.
CJinPA: "I think Trump noticed there is little political return on that investment."
The lefties are desperate that Trump return to the mold of republicans that democrats easily defeat.
History began anew this morning so the lefties are hoping no one else remembers the last 50 years.
Quite frankly I am surprised Cookie even has time to post what with all the round-the-clock Kim Yo-jong Adoration Parties going on.
I would have to guess that the inevitable decrease in Chavez/Maduro block parties is more than compensated for by red hot North Korea love on the left.
During January, the Treasury collected approximately $361,038,000,000 in total tax revenues and spent a total of approximately $311,802,000,000 to run a SURPLUS of approximately $49,236,000,000.
Despite the monthly surplus of $49,236,000,000, the federal government is still running a deficit of approximately $175,718,000,000 for the fiscal year 2018. That is because the government entered the month with a deficit of approximately $224,955,000,000.
Schumer's a numbers guy.
I bet he tracks the numbers of the "undocumented" very closely.
Counts them instead of sheep.
Does anyone have a good postmortem on the Tea Party?
I saw that surplus story. Can it really be true?
Assumes the new withholding tables are correct, right?
"The U.S. government had a monthly budget surplus of $49 billion in January, down slightly from the same month last year. For the fiscal year to date, the government’s deficit is $176 billion, up from $159 billion in the year-ago period. What happened: Some of the big drivers of spending in January were for the Department of Homeland Security, and interest on the public debt. Outlays for Homeland Security climbed by $2 billion, or 41% — something the Congressional Budget Office said was largely for disaster relief. "
Marketwatch.
"Since I can't, I'll just leave this post in "stub" form."
That's what she said.
Please tell me I'm the first to use that line on Althouse.
Just think about how low your taxes could be if the government only spent our money in reasonably intelligent ways with minimal waste. How about just not in stupid ways with half the current waste. Or, maybe just in constitutionally described responsibilities of the federal government. Imagine if the founders laid out the federal budget by percentage. Dream of the huge rebate we would all get at current tax levels. Or, think about how much good stuff could be done if only good stuff was done with all that money. How about one simple change: real means-test all entitlements. I can accept that we disagree about priorities, but how many of us think abled-bodied people, companies and organizations really need supported by hard working citizens.
All fantasy of course, but I would like the federal government with the next census to include a simple questionnaire where we could all fill in what percentage of the budget we want going to the major areas of federal expenditures. That would be more valuable than asking us what race we consider ourseleves to be since race isn't even a real thing.
"Does anyone have a good postmortem on the Tea Party?"
Yes. Kim Strassel's book, "The Intimidation Game" has an excellent account of how it was done.
It's worth reading and almost predicted the Trump win.
"Just think about how low your taxes could be if the government only spent our money in reasonably intelligent ways with minimal waste."
Means-testing entitlements would be a biggie. Cutting direct subsidies should be next. Reduce the federal work force by 10% to start. Then, with a little fortitude, limit disaster relief--no more $$ for NO. And then, gasp, really go through the defense budget.
" And then, gasp, really go through the defense budget."
The defense budget, I'm not sure of the numbers, has an enormous element of personnel costs, including medical and retirement.
The purchasing function is terribly corrupt as we saw with the "Fat Leonard scandal."
The US Navy is now investigating more than 60 admirals and hundreds of other Navy officers because of their possible involvement in a bribery and fraud case that has become the worst corruption scandal in the service’s history.
As the Washington Post’s Craig Whitlock reports, the admirals caught up in the so-called “Fat Leonard” scandal allegedly attended fancy meals — and post-dinner romps that sometimes included prostitutes and lots of alcohol — throughout Asia, paid for by a defense contractor named Leonard Glenn Francis. Francis is already in jail in San Diego because he pleaded guilty in January 2015 to charges of bribery and fraud; his bribes and fraudulent invoices helped him overcharge the Navy for his services by around $35 million. He’s now cooperating with authorities.
Purchasing ships is another scandal as the Navy seems to be paying a lot for aircraft carriers, although that piece defends the cost.
Off topic, but Ben Sass is asking Wray some VERY good questions re Steele. Of course Wray demurred. "maybe we can talk about that in a closed setting"
I’ll believe in budget surpluses when they square the Social Securty trust fund and stop borrowing for basic spending needs. -willie
If anyone wasn't worried about the yearly deficits by Obama, then, there is no reason for you to be worried about when Trump runs yearly deficits.
If you are suddenly worried about yearly deficits now, but weren't in the past, then you are a fucking hypocrite. So, fuck off.
"Get back to me when Trump adds $10 trillion to the national debt, like your hero Obama."
Francisco D., don't make comments based in ignorance. Obama was not my hero. I never voted for him and I deplored him as just another servant of the ruling elites. He is a war criminal no less than his predecessors.
Also,you're missing part of my point with regard to the link I provided: it's what Trump is spending money on. He's proposing cuts to Medicare while proposing increases to our already over-bloated, over-budgeted War Department. We need to slash military expenditures, easily by half,preferably by far more. He's also proposing expenditures for his ridiculous Wall. He's stealing tax dollars from programs that benefit American citizens to spend on programs that are wasteful and destructive of human life.
In short, he's just like most of his peers in Washington and his predecessors in the White House.
Robert Cook: "We need to slash military expenditures, easily by half,preferably by far more."
You keep using this word "we". I do not think it means what you think it means, Comrade.
Revitalization. Reconciliation. Rehabilitation.
Also, emigration reform, because there are unPlanned dreamers on both sides.
Finally, end the social justice adventures that are a first-order cause of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change and Catastrophic Anthropogenic Immigration Reform.
Mr Cook, you need to get ahold of a copy the Constitution of the United States of America. Then, check out Article 1, Section 8, and you'll find out why we have the Armed Forces. Spending any money on any type of welfare is not in the Constitution.
And this.
"The economy is surging, unemployment's near a 45-year low, wages are up by nearly 3% — and the federal government is enjoying the fruits of all that "Trump Boom" labor. According to the Monthly Treasury Statement released this week, the federal government just raked in more in taxes in the first four months of the fiscal year than any other year, broke the January record for tax collection, and ran a surplus for the first time in months.
In the month of January, which reflects some of the changes from the GOP's $1.5 trillion tax cut bill, the U.S. Department of the Treasury collected just over $361 billion (approx. $361,038,000,000) in total tax revenues, a record for the month of January.
While the feds collected $361 billion, they managed to spend about $49 billion less: $312 billion (approx. $311,802,000,000). That $49 billion surplus helped chip away at the deficit from the previous months of fiscal year 2018, which now stands at almost $176 billion ($175,718,000,000) for this fiscal year."
https://www.dailywire.com/news/27064/trumponomics-feds-just-made-history-tax-collection-james-barrett?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=liftable
AllenS: "Mr Cook, you need to get ahold of a copy the Constitution of the United States of America."
Dude, the Constitution is, like, a hundred years old or something.
It has no relevance to our existence today...(said every leftist everywhere)
"Mr Cook, you need to get ahold of a copy the Constitution of the United States of America. Then, check out Article 1, Section 8, and you'll find out why we have the Armed Forces. Spending any money on any type of welfare is not in the Constitution."
Do you mean this part? "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...." (I got that off the copy of the Constitution I have on my phone.)
NONE of the wars we've joined or started in the past half-Century, (and few prior to that) have had anything to do with "the common Defense" of the United States. So, we can easily slash our War Department budget by half (or preferably much more), and still have plenty enough to defend ourselves, given how little we've needed to do so in our entire history. We are usually the belligerents. The world can use a break from us.
And, as Congress is charged with providing for the "general Welfare of the United States," Congress, in fact, has the authority to create and fund any programs it deems appropriate to assist Americans in need. By cutting our War Department budget, we can apply the savings to other expenses, to paying down the deficit, and to providing for the medical and other needs of the penurious and elderly.
Or would you rather see your elderly friends and neighbors and relatives struggling with hunger, illness and/or bankruptcy, and avoidable death or debilitation because they haven't sufficient means to obtain affordable medical care or are otherwise wanting?
He's a businessman, so he probably is a numbers guy. That said, I watched the first season of The Apprentice when Omarosa was on, and I would take anything she says with a very large grain of salt.
Obama was not my hero. I never voted for him and I deplored him as just another servant of the ruling elites
Right. Bernie was just far enough left to suit him.
Fidel, after all, is dead.
"Or would you rather see your elderly friends and neighbors and relatives struggling with hunger, illness and/or bankruptcy, and avoidable death or debilitation because they haven't sufficient means to obtain affordable medical care or are otherwise wanting?"
Oh no! You figured us out. That's our plan exactly. Now let's keep it on the down low. We need to make sure they are all dead before any one finds out.
Cook: " So, we can easily slash our War Department budget by half (or preferably much more), and still have plenty enough to defend ourselves, given how little we've needed to do so in our entire history"
LOL
Well, someone had to pay the freight for Europe's wonderful socialism while they neglected defense expenditures.
No western European nation could effectively deploy even a couple of divisions or flotillas for any significant amount of time and maintain combat effectiveness.
But they all have great programs for bringing in masses of muslims who have no intention of assimilating and/or adopting western values.
So those countries have that going for them. Which is nice.
"Right. Bernie was just far enough left to suit him."
Nope! Bernie has always just been a standard Democrat pretending to be something more.
I voted for the Green Party Candidate, as I have every election since 1996.
It's so touching to find leftists suddenly concerned about deficits, the debt and increased spending by the federal government.
Cute, even.
"Francisco D., don't make comments based in ignorance. Obama was not my hero. I never voted for him and I deplored him as just another servant of the ruling elites. He is a war criminal no less than his predecessors."
Sorry Cookie,
I made a mistaken assumption. Obama was not far enough left for you.
My mistake.
Drago, you sound like an Army man, Sgt. Emil Foley is roiling in his grave. The Founding Xethers made this plain in the Constitution:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; (Temporary)
To provide and maintain a Navy; (Permanent)
Jim at and Francisco D both throw like grrrrrrrrrrlz
"I made a mistaken assumption. Obama was not far enough left for you."
Of course not, as he wasn't left at all. He was a middle-of-the-roader...a conservative Democrat or a liberal Republican, however one wants to look at it.
The Tea Party didn't die on the vine. It was strangled by political opponents and abandoned to die by its alleged political allies.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा