The work-around President
I don’t reveal a secret when I say that US president Trump is a quite erratic person. The best predictor to his actions seems to be the praise or critique you pay him: If you applaud his opinion or actions, he thinks you are a mightily good fellow (and vice versa).
Lately a book has made waves that describes once again how the White House staff works with and around their president. You know, putting his name in everything he has to read as often as possible, hide WTF stuff he wants to do (like declaring war) until he forgets it a few hours later and such things.
It may well be one of the sources of the book who has written this op-ed about his or her work as president Trumps staffer.
The most interesting piece for me is not Trump’s behavior – we have all read about it more than once – but the self-view of the staffer.
We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.
Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.
Okay, as a “socialist” I have problems seeing the guaranteed merit of deregulation (which not that long ago resulted in the second worst economic crisis in human history). I also don’t see the Hurraa!! of even more money wasted on military. And why the tax reform, that shovels even more money from the poorer half to the top 1 percent, is such a good thing is beyond me, but...
But imagine that is the “good” part – how bad must be the rest??
So the people around the most erratic president of the world invest a lot of effort to make sure Trump’s actions do the minimum possible damage.
But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.
It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
Defenders of the constitution! In the White House staffers of all places! Who would have thought that? And they defend their country by ignoring their president as best as they can.
Don’t you think it is very interesting that even the ones working closest to the president feel compelled to not follow his orders?
Even more interesting, if the country is really in the best state it ever was, as according to Trump, what does that mean for the government in general?
Maybe we should strip presidents etc. of all their powers, and let the “normal” people outside of politics do the work? Does that work the best?
Maybe the White House staffers should make a binge-watching week of the British sitcom “Yes, Minister”. They could learn a lot.
Sir Humphrey: Minister, the traditional allocation of executive responsibilities has always been so determined as to liberate the ministerial incumbent from the administrative minutiae by devolving the managerial functions to those whose experience and qualifications have better formed them for the performance of such humble offices, thereby releasing their political overlords for the more onerous duties and profound deliberations which are the inevitable concomitant of their exalted position.
Sir Humphrey: The people are ignorant and misguided.
Hacker: Humphrey, it's the people who elected me.
Sir Humphrey: [smiles and nods]
One hour of Yes, Minister quotes.
The US president amazes me everyday with his occasionally hilarious and downright insane tweets. But what baffles me the most is the support for him.
I've read the opinions of a few people on Quora who actually had to work with him on a few projects, and they're mostly the same; It was never pleasant.
The book "The Art of the Deal" manufactured a persona around him. It was all propaganda. Even the ghostwriter who wrote it described Trump in the worst way imaginable. Now he has regrets for propping the man up.
Trump not being a conservative doesn't surprise me in the slightest. He's not even a liberal. Like Clinton, he only sought the presidency for his own ego.
If Trump comes out for being pro choice and pro war tomorrow, you'll see the amount of mental gymnastics that people would do to re-align their personal views with him.
I'll be damned if I have to throw my support behind a guy just because he happens to be in the party I support. Americans need to re-assess and reflect on their choices, to put it bluntly.
I have seen on Twitter:
The Ghostwriter writes that Trump does not know anything about writing books or business.
A Trump fan yells at him: Trump does! Read his book "The Art of the Deal!"
Oh, the Irony!
I've even seen people trying to attack the ghostwriter for speaking out and thinks he's lying for brownie points. Seriously!
easy for you to criticize US tax reform since you are not a taxpayer here huh?
I like how you fell for this anonymous baloney hook, line and sinker.
I don't see why someone has to be in the country to criticise it. After all, don't you Americans keep croaking about Venezuela? I ain't complaining but you have a right to do so, just like everyone else has a write to criticise a country's politics.
The US tax reforms also mean less money for the US government. Remember you're not the only one in this thing. When the US falls, every other country allied to it suffers. See the economic crash of 2008 under Bush.
Do we? I don't know what that means, what does that mean?
Anyhow it's always easy to call for someone else to pay more taxes right?
Oh, gosh, the US is going to fall like in 2008? did you suffer in your country as a result?
"It's easy to call for someone else to pay more taxes right?"
Did anyone call for someone else to pay more taxes?
yes, tax reform reduced taxes so getting rid of it would be calling for Americans to pay more taxes, from the safety of another country.
Criticising the tax reform isn't the same as telling someone that they should pay more taxes. But okay, I'll leave you and your country to your whims, but when the next crash comes, we'll all be there to say "I told you so". It's not like your country has an ever increasing debt towards China or something.
I see market corrections as an opportunity. You will be where to say I told you so? What do you believe you are telling me that I don't know?
In most cases it is easier to see the reality of something if you aren't sitting right into it.
But please tell me your sight: Why you think it is good for a country, if the government takes on a HUGE deficit (which is always paid by the poor) for the sole reason that big companies can pay out more dividends to the rich stock holders.
Because they believe strongly in supply side economics. Supply side economics can stimulate the economy and supposedly create jobs but they're usually not enough on their own to offset the government deficit caused by tax cuts, and that's why they then start cutting spending in welfare.
In reality millions fewer Americans are on food stamps because they have jobs now.
I don't want to say I don't want your answers, but in this case I was asking funbobby - I often want to hear an explanation from someone to get their line of thougth (and maybe even make them think!!), and if somebody else answers, that does not work.
You understand what I mean?
"the poor" pay a vanishingly small percentage of federal taxes. So that is objectively false. It's easy to say that someone else should pay more taxes in another country, why don't you pay more taxes so your country can pay its fair share of NATO so American taxpayers wouldn't have to run a deficit to pay for your security?
Of course it's better to free up capital for investment instead of redistributing it. The way to end the deficits is to grow the tax base with policies that promote business.
When you tax something at a high rate is the goal for there to be less of that thing or more of it?
"the poor" pay a vanishingly small percentage of federal taxes. So that is objectively false. It's easy to say that someone else should pay more taxes in another country, why don't you pay more taxes so your country can pay its fair share of NATO so American taxpayers wouldn't have to run a deficit to pay for your security?
Of course it's better to free up capital for investment instead of redistributing it. The way to end the deficits is to grow the tax base with policies that promote business.
When you tax something at a high rate is the goal for there to be less of that thing or more of it?
Here in America there are no "the rich" or "the poor" why do you think class warfare applies here?
There are other taxes then federal taxes.
And anyway taxes are not the most important thing. You have to look at ALL government income/expenditure.
For those tax breaks normally services are cut that profit the poor (and who are much more reliant on those). Cuts to public schools for example are of no interest for those who send their children to private schools because they are rich. Same goes for health service and and and.
But that seldom happens. And it definitely does not happen in a situation like the current one. If you want to know if tax cuts would be going to investments, then just look at stock paybacks.
If a company buys back it's stock it means either
A) Managers are trying to maximize their personal profit at the cost of the company - and then they aren't going to invest additional money, but put it in their own pockets, or
B) the company sees no reason to invest money, not even to pay back existing loans (and every big company has loans). Additional money is ahem... unlikely to change that.
It is a bit like a little sister of the trickle down bullshit:
There is just no reason for a company to pay workers more (trickle down) because profits are rising.
This is even more funny than the "free market" sentence!
Because I would be extremely surprised if the US - as one of the least egalitarian and richest countries in the world no less - is the only country on earth where there is no class warfare.
Maybe you should google "class warfare Warren Buffet". You never know what you might find. Maybe even a war.
Congratulations @lennstar! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @steemitboard: