Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48

Thread: Quantifiable results.

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    13,000
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by gary m View Post
    like many others I voted for Trump.
    That's disconcerting.
    "[N]o one gives a shit about science and reality. I regularly get people telling me on the Twitter machine that liberals support murdering newborns. That's where the conversation on abortion is right now for too fucking many Americans. In other words, there is no conversation. When people wholeheartedly believe something that is completely, patently, blatantly untrue, your puny facts aren't going to put a dent in that level of delusional stupidity."

    ~ RP

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 31st, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 1:44 PM
    Posts
    3,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by gary m View Post
    You also said...


    So what would you consider significant improvement that would get you to vote for Trump since you are the one casting the ballot?
    Or do you not want to quantify anything because if those goals are stated and met, you can't play dead chicken in the middle of the road in 4 years?

    For me, so far my number one goal was met. No Clinton dynasty and no USSC poster child identity based appointments. Anything positive after that is icing on the cake.
    But then again, I live in a state where the vote actually did matter, so like many others I voted for Trump. I wish I had a better real choice, but here it was either Trump or Clinton.
    I want a significantly improved economy and more national stability. I'd like to be removed from any foreign conflicts.

    I can only objectively evaluate the last of those. As I stated, I don't have a good grasp of what numbers we should see for an economy, but there are many here who do.

    Scott was very helpful here. Those are numbers that I can check. Do others agree with him, or do you have different suggestions.

    Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
    All mistakes are caused by the phone.
    That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:08 PM
    Posts
    10,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Jingo View Post
    For the record, Mostly False

    The PDF
    Quote Originally Posted by scott View Post
    Yes, the Tampa Bay Times carried the water for their favorite President. That doesn't mean they are correct. The chart was used to sell the big spend and the results were completely different.
    Furthermore from The PDF we have this:

    As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the
    unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the
    approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.1
    The footnote for 1 reads:

    1 Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate
    unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action.
    None of the language says that they don't expect the jobless rate to track widely away from the summary chart and none of the language says that the stimulus would result in conditions worse than their chart predicts without the stimulus.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Flyover Country
    Posts
    3,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Jingo View Post
    That's disconcerting.
    I had 2 viable (read, electable) choices. Trump and Clinton.
    While not thrilled with either, I could not and would not vote for another Clinton.

    Maybe one day I'll live in a totally "safe" red or blue state where I can put my conscience ahead of pragmatic reality.
    But last Tuesday wasn't that day.

  5. Likes Newman liked this post
  6. #35
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    8,610
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Frostbit View Post
    Nice bait thread. You got me. I'll try not to let it happen again.
    This is nothing more than a continuation of Bok's thread. I'm sure more will be started as previous ones die.

    Quote Originally Posted by gary m View Post
    This is just another part of the game and is a set up in the same vein as when the wife asks if the dress..........

    He didn't, or said he didn't, vote Democratic. Living in NY, he was able to take the cop-out of voting 3rd party because NY was already firmly in the bag for Hillary.
    Of course he also claimed that if his vote might have actually made a difference, he would vote Hillary. Got to hand it to him for his convictions.
    Yes. Btw, does it really matter if you continuously say you didn't vote for someone (because you need it for your centerist creds) when all through their campaign you ran to defend them? Uh, no.
    May we raise children who love the unloved things - the dandelion, the worm, the spiderlings.
    Children who sense the rose needs the thorn and run into rainswept days the same way they turn towards the sun...
    And when they're grown and someone has to speak for those who have no voice,
    may they draw upon that wilder bond, those days of tending tender things and be the one.

  7. Likes scott liked this post
  8. #36
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:42 PM
    Posts
    10,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Jingo View Post
    I am getting the impression that you (and others) are less than sanguine about Trump's prospects.
    I'm a realist. I think he will be better than Obama. I don't think he will turn water into wine.

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. It’s the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  9. #37
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 8:46 PM
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    13,267
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Djharkavy View Post
    In another thread, I said that if there were significant improvement in our country's situation in the next four years, I would vote for Trump.

    So I would like to know what we should expect. Trump will make America Great Again. What does that mean in terms of something that we can check four years from now?

    Please spare me left/right bullshit and give me quantifiable expectations.
    I'll preface this by saying that I still don't trust the guy and I'm neither holding any particular faith in this nor am I making any sort of prediction here. But, I cannot deny the fact that Trump completely blew away my expectations with regards to the elections: I really, genuinely thought on Tuesday night that he was going to get a serious drubbing and that the GOP would lose at least the Senate, possibly even the House. So I have to admit that I was WAY wrong, and I could be entirely wrong about his effectiveness as a President.

    Just to be clear: I'm in favor of probably about 75% or so of Trump's stated policy positions writ large, and I have to also confess that I'm really not intimately familiar with details of his policy positions. Ergo, I may agree with him about, say, the general idea of getting rid of Obamacare, but it's possible that his plan may well really suck in my view, once I study the details. I just don't trust him at his word, not to mention that he's a gigantic, throbbing asshole, so I'm still not really a "Trump supporter" now, outside of the broader notion that I wish any President well in terms of wisdom, health, etc., because that's good for the nation as a whole. I am and always was opposed to Hillary, I was just also opposed to Trump. He's won now, so even though I didn't really want him supposedly representing conservatives or conservative ideals or values (he's already blown it pretty bad on that last one), he's the guy now, so insofar as I agree with his policy positions, I'm going to have to get behind him. I have every intention of watching him like a hawk and I'll say so if his policies, as enacted as realities rather than some white-paper platitude sketch, differ from mine.


    So, I'll try to be as specific and quantifiable as I can, generally about goals that I personally would like, but I'll also toss in the caveat that it's possible that something I want here that may not actually be a stated policy position/goal of Trump.


    I will absolutely consider Trump a resounding, unquestionable success, defying my expectations entirely, if he manages to do all of the following:


    • Nominate genuine originalists ("in the mold of Scalia," I think, were the words he used), and get them confirmed. He'll have Scalia's seat, obviously, and I figure that at least one more (probably Ginsburg) will either voluntarily retire or die between now and January 20, 2020. I feel certain that there will be at least a total of three seats (including Scalia's) vacated in one fashion or another between today and January 20, 2025. The same standards apply to all confirmed nominees. I also freely admit that this is pretty much not quantifiable in the least, but for some manner of general consensus amongst conservatives contemporary to the nomination(s) and confirmation(s). This one will have to be one of those "look back" things, I'm afraid.

    • Genuinely reduce the number of unemployed in the United States. And I'm not quantifying that with the generally-published "unemployment rate." My quantification is specific: there are ~94 million in this country who have essentially left the workforce and/or are working at some position that pays far less than their qualifications. IOW, there is, in that number, some number of electrical engineers who are flipping burgers somewhere just to keep from starving to death, as an extreme example. The measure of success here a genuine, actual integer lower than 94 million here (or whatever it is, just in case I've got that one wrong a bit), but there are a couple of sticky wickets here: 1.) that later number must account for general attrition through either aging into retirement or just dying, and, related; 2.) it has to be an actual even comparison on the count. What I mean about #2 is that there is a continuing argument that Obama supporters make that the hugely-ballooning number here is due to every baby-boomer supposedly retiring at once, but the counter-argument is that this number officially counts no one over age 65, whether they work or not, and therefore should generally exclude anyone on Social Security right off the bat. I don't really care which measure that we use, but they have to be the same counting method and adjust for attrition. I admit that this comparison may be difficult to make because of the accounting shenanigans of how these counts take place.

    • Genuinely reduce federal spending/federal government debt. My quantification here is that this has to be an actual integer lower than whatever the actual integer of U.S. dollars that the feds spend and/or the debt (since the two are tied). So, if the federal debt at noon on January 20, 2017 is $20,000,000,000,000, then at some point before January 20, 2025, that number needs to be $19,999,999,999,999 or less. I'm going to say that we likely have to exclude budget numbers, because in Washington those numbers have not even a passing acquaintance with the actual number of actual dollars spent. One thing that I will definitely not accept in the category of "exceptional success" is the Beltway definition of a "cut," meaning some increase in spending, but it's less than what someone wanted. This has to be a real, genuine actual reduction in spending and/or debt that can be measured with actual math using actual integers. Oh, and final qualification on the quantification: the reduction can come from anywhere: if it's cuts in the military (and I guarandamntee that there's at least 5% to be found in there somewhere) or cuts in welfare or even cuts in Social Security, all qualify under "exceptional success."

    • Eliminate at least one federal department. Quantification requirement: it has to be a genuine elimination, not just combine up a bunch of stuff and create some "super-department," a la Homeland Security. I don't care which one, though my first choice for the chopping block is Education.

    • Reduce the number of people on federally-funded social services. I'm going to say that this needs to be a "significant amount," because that number has ballooned over the last ten years or so. So, there are about 47 million on food stamps right now, for example, roughly double what it was when Obama took office, I believe. Knocking this down to 46 million isn't really a resounding success in my book. A halfway decent start, but not resounding success territory. Cut that down to about 2006 numbers, and we're really talking. This reduction can take any form, though: a whole lot of people get jobs and don't need it anymore, or he just gets the qualifications tightened up and a bunch of these folks get booted out of the social safety hammock, or even if he kicks out 12 million illegals and a bunch of those no longer get social services, or pretty much anything else short of lining those people up and shooting them or something like that.

    • Steeply reduce the number of illegal aliens in the United States. Defining the quantification is easy: if there are 12 million illegal aliens here today, and there are, say, 4 million illegal aliens here on January 20, 2025, then that is a resounding success, provided that this didn't happen through just making those illegals legal.

    • Genuinely reduce the federal deficit. Broadly the same qualifications as reducing the debt. A significantly smaller integer is a resounding success.

    • Tougher to quantify, but achieve some substantive tax reform. I consider "reform" possible in a variety of ways, but broadly I mean reductions in the federal income tax rate and/or a flattening of tax brackets. This could take the form of a drastically reduced or eliminated corporate income tax, implementing the FairTax, utilizing something akin to Cruz's "simplify taxes so that you file on a postcard" or Cain's 9-9-9 plan, eliminating or drastically reducing the estate tax, or maybe something else. This one will ultimately have to be one of those "look back" things like the Supreme Court.

    • Also not really easy to quantify because it's defined as a negative, but broadly-speaking, hold the line on any gun restrictions. By that I mean not allowing any increased restrictions on gun (or ammunition) sales or ownership for ordinary, law-abiding, non-insane Americans. This takes multiple forms, though: Supreme Court nominees who would uphold things like Heller is one track, but also getting out his veto pen if Congress sends him some sort of legislation that would curtail gun rights, or even just using his power of the bully pulpit to advocate against increased restrictions. About the best quantification that I can come up with here is "no more federal restrictions on guns than November 8, 2016." I would love to see something like nation-wide concealed carry or something like that, but I consider that pie-in-the-sky stuff, at least for the moment, so I'm not holding him to some sort of standard like that.

    • Refuse to increase or even eliminate the federal minimum wage. I think that this is actually counter to his stated policy position, but if the federal minimum wage either stays where it is or just goes away, I'll call that a success.

    • Starve all sanctuary cities and states of federal dollars. This is a tool in the bag of bringing illegal immigration to heel, but it's also a specific policy position: you Leftists wanted immigration made federal in 1986, so we did, and you don't get to go back on that now, so you're going to suffer if you decide to thumb your nose at federal enforcement efforts. So, quantification is that there is a policy of not allowing federal dollars flow into sanctuary cities and states, probably with executive action at first and later Congressional moves to cut off the spigot as a matter of federal law. But a policy of cutting off sanctuary cities is a policy of cutting off sanctuary cities, no matter of how we get there, so that gets filed under "success." In my ideal world, that would be a complete cut-off of all federal dollars (highway funds, Medicaid funding, you name it), but I recognize that it's probably not legally possible to cut off every single penny, so we'll have to settle on the not-really-quantifiable qualification of "a sharp reduction in real federal dollars going to these places."


    There's more that I'll have to ponder on as far as quantification goes. For example, "peace in the Middle East" would be a yuge success, but how exactly do we define that?


    Now, with this list, if he did all of these things, as I said above, his Presidency would be a gigantic success. And I'm intentionally not putting this in terms of ultimate results, such as "increase GDP by 3%" or whatever, because of a couple of reasons: 1.) I believe that these sorts of desirable results will occur anyway if he accomplishes the goals above, and; 2.) there are a whole lot of factors outside of any policy position goal that could lead to these results anyway. IOW, neither Bill Clinton nor Ronald Reagan created the tech industry; they may have had some policy positions that ultimately gave rise to countless jobs and huge economic gain being created in Silicon Valley and beyond (ultimately jacking up GDP and whatnot), but they didn't actually create that industry that sprang up during that time. They're tied together, but they're not the same thing.

    If he accomplishes half of these things, I would still consider his Presidency a success. Possibly still even a huge success. If he manages to make clear progress on 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, then he's still definitely got my vote four years from now. If he only gets maybe one or two of these done, then I'll have to think pretty hard about my vote in 2020: with big promises come big expectations, and if he doesn't live up to those expectations, then he would be fired as a CEO out here in the real world. If you campaign as a businessman outsider when you run for public office, promising to run government more like a business, then you're going to be subject to business world rules and penalties for failing to deliver.




    Finally, Trump can score some "extra credit" here if he so chooses. I don't specifically expect him to expend political capital on these, but if he did, he would score big points AFAIC.

    • Actually implement, meaningfully use, and genuinely follow the "let people read it" rule. Remember that one? That the entire country would have the opportunity to read legislation before any action on it? If he uses that, and uses the bully pulpit to promote it to the American people, that would score big points with me.

    • Manage to get "one issue per bill" through Congress. Congress themselves would almost certainly fight this one tooth and nail, but should Trump become so wildly popular that there would be a grassroots uprising to force Congress into this, then that would be gigantic in my opinion.

    • Get a workable balanced budget Amendment passed. That's a pretty big one: I'd have to go back and double-check, but I don't think that any one President has managed to carry an Amendment through from start to finish in their Presidency. But it would sure be a big feather in his fidora if he managed to get that carried through, particularly given that much of Congress will fiercely oppose it.


    I'm not expecting any of these, but if any of them were to occur, I would definitely consider that as going a long way toward calling a Trump Presidency a success.
    Leftists have unquestionably demonstrated their hatred for due process, and Democrats have undeniably obstructed justice for, and thoroughly victim-shamed and smeared, Karen Monahan.

  10. Thanks Newman thanked for this post
    Likes Newman liked this post
  11. #38
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:42 PM
    Posts
    10,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    The debt is not gonna be reduced. It simply cannot happen without causing pain to someone. And since they vote, no one will move on that idea.

    America will continue to go on, until its collapse.

    UNLESS someone comes up with an "outside the box" solution. Why can't we put social security on a 100 year plan wherein that in the first year people have to put 1% of their social security money in a private plan, and go to 2% the next year, and so on?

    All the while, our country would be weaning everyone off of the government teat. Every year, government obligation would go down while private participation goes up.

    Anything faster than an absolute snails pace is destined to fail.

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. It’s the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  12. #39
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:08 PM
    Posts
    10,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 80zephyr View Post
    The debt is not gonna be reduced. It simply cannot happen without causing pain to someone. And since they vote, no one will move on that idea.

    America will continue to go on, until its collapse.

    UNLESS someone comes up with an "outside the box" solution. Why can't we put social security on a 100 year plan wherein that in the first year people have to put 1% of their social security money in a private plan, and go to 2% the next year, and so on?

    All the while, our country would be weaning everyone off of the government teat. Every year, government obligation would go down while private participation goes up.

    Anything faster than an absolute snails pace is destined to fail.

    Mark
    Leftists are too stupid to understand the problem with the current structure of Social Security and the benefits of modifying it to be a wealth creation vehicle as well as a very secure safety net.

  13. Likes 80zephyr liked this post
  14. #40
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:42 PM
    Posts
    10,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by scott View Post
    Leftists are too stupid to understand the problem with the current structure of Social Security and the benefits of modifying it to be a wealth creation vehicle as well as a very secure safety net.
    I agree. My wife and I have retirement plans. Should I die the month I retire, that money is still there. My SS, after 40+ years of paying in, is worthless.

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. It’s the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  15. Likes scott liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •