Donald Trump's 100 day plan: the good, the bad, and the terrifying


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2016/11/22/donald-trumps-100-day-plan.html


#2

And the kleptocracy begins.


#3


#4

Who’d have thought that a grifter who’s spent decades engaging in bullying local governments into sweetheart deals and giving special consideration to cronies would set up Trojan horses if given power?


#5

While I agree with what the author is saying, I’d like a second, more clearheaded opinion, given that much of the article is specifically written from the perspective of “Bernie would have won if not for the meddling of the DNC and special interests”. It’s moot. Bernie was not the candidate, Bernie did not win. Move on. Deal with what we have and how to combat it, and stop whining about Bernie for chrissake. He’s doing productive, important work right now on the grassroots level.


#6

To paraphrase Goering*, “When I hear ‘pro-growth,’ that’s when I reach for my revolver.”
1.) There’s little to no evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy increase economic growth, at least not at the current relatively low tax levels. (There is some evidence that they are helpful at the super-high marginal rates of the early 60s)
2.) There is ABSOLUTELY NO reason to believe that the wealthiest in 1% will suddenly become unable to steer all the economic gains from growth to their own pockets. They have become very good at funneling almost all “growth” into their own pockets, and I see no reason to believe that they will suddenly become incompetent at this.

*Yes, I’m aware that he never ACTUALLY said anything like this but it is a common attribution.


#7

Not sure that you should plan a parade for the TPP/NAFTA pullouts because Trump has promised bilateral trade agreements with other nations that could be equally bad if not worse. They are pyrrhic victories if the new agreements don’t safeguard citizens and public services.

From a canuck’s perspective, I’m very worried about what will happen to the Great Lakes if a new/renegotiated NAFTA includes commodified water.


#8

You guys will figure it out


#9

Drain the swamp and replace it with Westworld badlands.


#10

At this point, I’d rather have a megalomaniac like Robert Ford running things than Drumpf.


#11

Asking for a clearheaded opinion of Naked Capitalism is a lost cause. Not sure why Cory likes them. They’re not quite a left-wing Breitbart, but they illustrate the same problem of internet echo-chambers that carefully sell/tell their audience exactly what they want to hear, reinforce poorly informed, shallow narratives, frame complex issues in naive simple-minded ways, and perpetuate ignorance.


#12

Can’t say I agree. Their link-list posts are full of great reads. And I appreciate the clear-eyed view, including among the commentariat, of the scurrilous, bubble-dwelling mendacity of the Democratic establishment. Overall, that place is anything but an echo-chamber of “ignorance.”


#13

"calls out the few bright spots (killing TPP, improving NAFTA)"
It’s totally delusional to call those “bright spots.” Unless one is a kleptocrat, in which case, that’s probably true. Trump has never actually shown an evidence that he has any idea what TPP even is. (Last I heard, he thought it was a trade deal with China.) Best case scenario is he replaces them with trade agreements entirely written by corporate lobbyists.

That’s a polite bit of understatement! Given that it’s never done so, nor does it even work in theory, you’d think the idea would be pretty well dead at this point.
Apparently one of Trump’s policy positions is to have an overseas income tax amnesty. The argument being that corporations will move some of their income back to the US (where it actually originated), and use it for investments in research, etc. Except the last time this happened, the only impact was that CEO compensation went up and companies did stock buy-backs.


#14

I like this idea!


#15

You got me thinking about Mission of Burma, and I found a wikipedia explanation for the misattribution. A click through of the first footnote takes one to the grand list of misattributions.


#16

How is that supposed to work? The Federal government doesn’t have the authority to set policy for state and local law enforcement agencies, and there aren’t nearly enough Feds to do the job. Plus I’m pretty sure the FBI et al. have better things to do with their time than patting down random brown teenagers on the street.


#17

Presumably, Trump will spend the next four years personally groping as many people as possible.

He was planning on doing that anyway, though.


#18

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.