SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A Real American President: Donald Trump -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mrjns who wrote (82496)7/8/2018 3:09:51 PM
From: FJB7 Recommendations

Recommended By
arno
Honey_Bee
locogringo
mel221
Mrjns

and 2 more members

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 455938
 



To: Mrjns who wrote (82496)7/8/2018 3:16:40 PM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By
toccodolce

  Respond to of 455938
 
Exports hit a record high under Trump

Don Surber
Saturday, July 07, 2018
donsurber.blogspot.com

I didn't make a big deal about the economy gaining a net 213,000 jobs in June because this is now the usual. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 delivered within days. After 8 years, we still await Obama's health bomb to deliver those $2,500 reductions in premiums like he promised.

Having made America profitable again (MAPA) by dropping the corporate tax rate 40% -- it is now at the European average -- President Trump pivoted to trade, and the news is good.

Exports hit a record $215.3 billion in May. USA Inc. is now on pace to have revenues of $2.5 trillion this year.

Sadly, we are on pace to buy $3 trillion on goods and services, meaning our losses will hit another $500 billion or so this year.

But the May trade deficit -- loss -- was $43.1 billion, the lowest since October 2016.

The problem is China. It is a trade exploiter, not a trading partner.

"The United States’ goods trade deficit with Japan shrank 12.6 percent in May from the previous month to $5.49 billion, the U.S. Commerce Department has said," the Japan Times reported.

"The deficit with China, meanwhile, expanded 18.7 percent to $33.19 billion, while that with the European Union narrowed 8.6 percent to $13.39 billion, the department said Friday."

If we cutoff all trade with China, our annual losses as the USA Inc. would fall to a more manageable $125 billion or so.

Don't buy the "U.S." Chamber of Commerce jazz that bleeding a half-trillion a year is somehow god for us. We had 19 million factory jobs in 1979 under Jimmy Carter. After NAFTA and giving China the keys to our country, we have less than 13 million.

Our population is up 50%.

If factory jobs don't matter, why is China gobbling them up?

By the way, Washington may hate it, but businessmen love President Trump's trade policies. Steve Olson is a Facebook friend.

"I love the tariffs Trump is imposing on China. My small home based business has been hit hard by China's super low pricing on what I sell," he wrote.

"For years I have been selling used industrial inspection equipment. In the past few years China has been providing new on many of what I sell for for less than I can sell used. What used to be profitable is no longer.

"Also, I have had foreign customers get very upset because of tariffs they have had to pay when I shipped to their countries. None of what Trump is applying the tariffs will directly impact consumers.

"It is about time we leveled the playing field. Trump's goal is free trade which we have not had for a long time. Most other countries tax our goods and we have not been taxing theirs. Restoring good paying jobs to the US worker is what we need to Make America Great Again."



To: Mrjns who wrote (82496)7/8/2018 3:20:56 PM
From: FJB4 Recommendations

Recommended By
Honey_Bee
Intrepid1
Mrjns
Woody_Nickels

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 455938
 
Everything Is Not OK

By Dr. Bastiat
July 6, 2018
ricochet.com

I went for a haircut today. Money is no object when it comes to my appearance – only the absolute finest will do. So I went to Sport Clips in the strip mall next to Target, with a $3 coupon in hand. Like many other fashion-conscious men, I frequent this establishment and don’t think I’ve ever had my hair cut by the same person twice. Like many other seemingly mundane things, this interests me. Well, most of the things that interest me actually are mundane, I suppose. But I’m fascinated by these young ladies. Who are they? Where do they come from? Where do they go? So I’ve applied for a federal grant to study attractive, rural, 30-year-old women who cut hair at gimmicky chain barber shops.

Well, actually, no – I just talk to them. And I learn a lot.

Kaitlyn (not her real name) just moved here from Georgia. Her husband is an auto mechanic. “He can fix anything with four wheels! Well, except my car – it runs like crap!” She went on at some length about how good he was at fixing things. His plan was to start his own shop once they moved here. They moved into a double-wide trailer that had a nice pole barn out back, which he planned to outfit with electric and a high-end air compressor, maybe even a grease pit, and start his own business.

He spent almost a year working on permits, licenses, inspections, and so on. He spoke to people from the county, city, state, feds, and the EPA. He talked to attorneys, accountants, and consultants to help wade through all the red tape. After about a year, he realized that the start-up costs were more than he was willing to gamble on the eventual success of a business that did not yet exist, so he got a job with the city, maintaining their trucks and mowing equipment. It doesn’t pay very well, but it has good benefits. It’s not a bad job, she says. Nothing to complain about. Everything is ok.

Kaitlyn did a great job on my hair, was very pleasant and personable, and is clearly very intelligent. She said that a few miles from their house, a barber recently retired. She considered buying his shop. She’s always dreamed of owning her own business. She said that’s the whole reason she went to cosmetology school. I said that sounded great – the shop is already set up, it has a large group of established customers, and she could expand from there.

She said that she spent several months looking into it, but she would need permits, licenses, inspections, and so on. I pointed out that it has been a barber’s shop for years, so the inspections, permits, and so on would already be done. She said that it would be a new business, and she would have to pay for all that to be done over again. She spoke with attorneys, accountants, and consultants to help wade through all the red tape – some of the same individuals that her husband had just consulted. She soon realized that the start-up costs were more than she was willing to gamble, so she got a job with a chain. The pay is not very good, and the benefits are lousy. One reason her husband took a government job was for the health insurance for their family. But she doesn’t mind working for Sport Clips – it’s a decent job, she says. Nothing to complain about. Everything is ok.

So how does this story end?

Well, in my view, it’s already ended. This young couple from a modest background has all the potential in the world. They’re both ambitious, intelligent, and very good at a valuable skill. They’re devoted to their family, their dreams, and each other. They dream of better things and are willing to gamble, willing to work hard today for a better tomorrow, and willing to take on the additional responsibilities that come with owning a business. They’re savvy enough with modern government to hire attorneys and consultants to help with the red tape.

And even they can’t open a new business, to do something they already know how to do.

And 30 years from now, nothing will have happened.


My Uncle Fred (Frederic Bastiat) described this as the seen versus the unseen. Progressives win elections because the benefits they provide are immediate and obvious. They give people free money with taxpayer dollars, or build highways with taxpayer dollars, or start new general assistance programs with taxpayer dollars. They’re working for you, and anyone with eyes can see it. The benefits provided by progressives are seen.

But the damage they cause is mostly unseen. In 30 years, Kaitlyn and her husband could have retired to a very nice community on the Gulf Coast and played golf for the rest of their lives. But they won’t
. She’ll still be cutting hair for $12 an hour plus tips, and he’ll still be fixing lawn mowers for the city. Just like they are now.

They didn’t lose a fortune, because they never had the opportunity to earn one. Nothing happened. There they sit. And there they’ll stay.

Progressives may think they’re utopians who dream of a better tomorrow. But, in reality, they are the robotic defenders of the status quo. Everything stays the same because nothing happens. And when things don’t happen, those things don’t make the evening news. They didn’t happen at all, so there’s nothing to complain about. Everything is basically ok. And that’s the way it will stay.

Until it doesn’t.

Change is scary. You never know what might happen. It might be good. It might be bad. You roll the dice like this young couple tried to do. Twice.

Or you don’t. Like progressives do, every day.

I wonder if Kaitlyn views progressives as nice people who are trying to help her. Or if she views them as well-meaning fools, as I do when I’m trying to be charitable.

But in bed late at night, I wonder if she ever hates them for destroying her life and the lives of her children.

Probably not. Because nothing really happened. And nothing ever will.

There’s nothing to complain about.

Everything is ok.

I left her a $10 tip for a $15 haircut, and I walked out. I looked good – it really was a sharp haircut. But I felt like I wanted to puke.

Everything is not ok.

Share



To: Mrjns who wrote (82496)7/8/2018 3:26:52 PM
From: FJB4 Recommendations

Recommended By
Honey_Bee
Mrjns
toccodolce
Woody_Nickels

  Respond to of 455938
 
What was Strzok doing investigating for the FBI without a security clearance?

By Monica Showalter
July 8, 2018
americanthinker.com

In the intelligence world, a security clearance, especially a really high one, is not only the job requirement, it's the ultimate status object. It shields one from having to answer questions from curious outsiders, and it gives a wide berth for actions that other people are not allowed to do, such as surveillance and spying

So why was Peter Strzok running around without a security clearance, in the nation's top counterintelligence outfit, as its director of counterintelligence?

This is so baffling.


Here is the tweet from investigative reporter Paul Sperry, seconded by Sundance over at Conservative Treehouse:

BREAKING: Strzok himself posed a national security risk while he was investigating Trump & his campaign aides for national security threats. Strzok flunked a 2016 internal polygraph by FBI, yet retained access to TS/SCI classified info & continued to run 2 major espionage probes

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) July 6, 2018


According to Sundance, the guy lost his clearance after flunking a routine polygraph exam around January of 2016, well before President Trump was elected. That would have been back when everyone was saying Trump's candidacy was kind of a joke and he was supposedly paying people to cheer him. There were about a dozen Republican candidates and a few Democratic candidates running for president at the time, including Strzok's own reported favorite, John Kasich.

What's unclear is why he flunked his polygraph, which was declared 'out of scope' according to testimony linked on Sundance's site from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It was also confirmed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions earlier, in a more general way.

Sperry observed that as Strzok supposedly investigated Trump as a national security risk, he himself was a national security risk, unable to so much as pass a polygraph. What makes this so eye-popping is that this guy was all his life an intelligence professional. He knew what polygraphs were and he probably passed a lot of them as he bit and clawed his way to the top of the counterintelligence unit. He gets to the top and thinks he can lie his way out of a polygraph? He couldn't have been that stupid. You never lie in your polygraph, no matter how stupid or incompetent or dishonest you have been. You tell the truth, because flunking the polygraph is un-fixable, you flunk your polygraph and you're out. Anything else you have done will get you some kind of yelling-at but you won't be out.

So why did he flunk his polygraph, and at that pre-Trump date? Just so strange. What it suggests is that Obama-style standards were in place, and James Comey was running things. If Ben Rhodes could be allowed to operate without a top security clearance after he flunked his background investigation (initially), well then anyone else could flunk too and go right on carrying on. It makes one wonder if Strzok knew that (and as chief of CI, he knew a lot of stuff) and realized it didn't really matter, he had seen it before.

In any case, it provides lots of material for congressional investigators to explore. Sundance noted that there was an institutional problem going on, with top officials protecting unworthy members as a means of closing ranks. It could be that, or it could be the Obama end to all standards. In any case, it suggests an agency in need of rebuilding, and that can't happen soon enough.

Share