Presidential advice on how to get things done

WITH MORE JOURNALISTIC FAILINGS HERE: CNN’s Jim Acosta mocked for accidentally proving that border walls work.

More at the link, including lots of piling onto Unlucky Jim, the very model of a modern media analyst. He is utterly representative of the class of leftist fools the rest of society must continually contend with.

This entry was posted in American politics, Media. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Presidential advice on how to get things done

  1. The reporter was trying to put pressure on Trump by using the “plight” of Fed employees affected by the shut down. As if he gives a shit about Fed employees.
    Trump is exactly right when he calls out that piece of shit for what he is.

  2. Rusty of Qld

    Trump knows how to drive a hard bargain after all those years dealing with New York’s toughest. He knows when to compromise on some points, but when it comes to the rock solid core of the business (putting Americas interests first) there is no compromise. Trump is the non politician that all countries need!

  3. gbees

    Why doesn’t the reporter ask the Democrats why they don’t agree to the wall so that Fed employees can go back to work? Answer: because the reporter is biased, a progressive and a dem. voter.

  4. Tom

    Because their DC bubble is totally disconnected from reality, Chuck and Nancy reckon they’re on a winner backing the interests of fat-arsed public servants (who’ve merely had their pay delayed, not cancelled) over the public interest in national security. And the reporter trying to do the gotcha on Trump thinks people are too stupid to see he’s just a grandstanding Democratic Party activist. That’s why the news media is as popular as arse cancer, you idiot.

  5. Dr Fred Lenin

    I love the way Trump confronts the lying left media ,put up or shut up s good maxim with these regressive narxists ,no wonder they hste him,he has exposed them as th unaware cretins they are . As for peosi and co pull down the walls around your house .liberate the rich from segregation, join the American People, live in the real world . Hope the prats in canberra read this and act accordingly

  6. candy

    The Democrats are going to play this to the end. It’s about impeaching Trump, not national security. I think we can see that clearly now.

    I think he will give it a little more time before he declares national emergency and finds money elsewhere that can be used for the walls and release money for the public servants etc.

    Maybe a day or so more?

  7. Tim Neilson

    Maybe a day or so more?

    Possibly, but the longer it goes on the more obvious it is how bogus the Dems’ “concern” about the shutdown is.

  8. mh

    A series of videos on Breitbart showing a split occurring between CHANCEY and other Dems.

    Democrats Crack on the Wall
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/10/democrats-crack-on-the-wall/

  9. Ivan Denisovich

    Ann Coulter:

    When President Reagan implemented the strategy that won the Cold War, he was opposed by the entire media, as well as foreign policy “experts” in both parties.

    The New York Times and Washington Post produced nonstop denunciations of his “dangerous” policies. There were propaganda movies like “The Day After,” terrifying Americans about a Soviet strike on our country. Witless college students demanded cyanide pills be stocked in campus health care clinics, on the grounds that Reagan was going to get us all nuked.

    Only after Reagan’s policies succeeded did these same hysterics say, Ho hum, no big deal. We always knew the Soviet Union was a paper tiger.

    Frantically rewriting history, they claimed Reagan had merely continued the policies of his predecessors. The truth about their eight-year primal scream is helpfully assembled in my smash best-seller, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.

    The Democrats, the media and most of the Republican Party are as fanatically opposed to Trump’s ideas about illegal immigration as they were to Reagan’s ideas about winning the Cold War.

    RTWT

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2019-01-09.html#read_more

  10. max

    “When President Reagan implemented the strategy that won the Cold War”

    that strategy was not necessary

    MISES PREDICTED THIS

    All of this was predictable in general. More to the point, all of it had been predicted. It was predicted in 1920 by Ludwig von Mises, in an essay: Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth. In 1922, he extended that essay into a comprehensive treatise, Socialism. Mises made it clear that it would not be possible for any socialist commonwealth to implement its theory of socialism. If any government attempted this, the economy would end in chaos and economic breakdown. Without capital markets, and without the private ownership of the means of production, it is not possible to find out what anything is worth or what anything costs. Without a price system, there is nothing but economic blindness.

    The socialists did their best to ignore this essay for the next 70 years, but in the end, it was obvious: Mises was right.

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/12642.cfm

  11. Ivan Denisovich

    that strategy was not necessary

    In what time frame?

  12. eb

    Correct Ivan. There’s a lot of ruin in a nation, even a commie hellhole.

    Defeating and destroying the Soviet Union needed to be done as quickly as possible. A mighty nation finding itself getting poorer and becoming more desperate may be tempted to lash out in one last attempt at survival/victory.

  13. JohnA

    max #2904482, posted on January 11, 2019, at 1:08 pm

    “When President Reagan implemented the strategy that won the Cold War”

    that strategy was not necessary

    MISES PREDICTED THIS

    I posted this elsewhere but is relevant to this point:
    When Reagan reduced taxes and let the economy loose, he dared Gorbachev to implement his economic policies and see if the USSR could out-do the US economically.

    The contest was like a drag race from the traffic lights: the US economy roared ahead and the USSR’s collapsed, hastening the end which we saw when the Berlin Wall came down.

    Of course, that wasn’t the end of socialism, but it was the end of the USSR as an immediate threat to the West.

  14. Mak Siccar

    From today’s Oz.

    Pelosi faces a taxing time from new breed of ‘anger translators’
    JASON L. RILEY

    THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
    12:00AM JANUARY 11, 2019
    The White House correspondents’ dinner in 2015 included a skit featuring Barack Obama and the comedian Keegan-Michael Key. As Obama stood at a lectern offering vapid pleasantries about press coverage, his “anger translator”, portrayed by Key, lurked behind him acting out what the president was really thinking.

    Today, Democrats keep their “anger translators” in-house, among the progressive members of the 116th congress sworn in last week. Already we’ve heard Rashida Tlaib, the freshman Democrat from Michigan, announce with an obscenity that her caucus is deadset on impeaching Donald Trump. Next came Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, laying out the new House of Representatives majority’s ambitious agenda — universal health care, free college tuition, a Green New Deal to combat climate change — in an interview on Sunday.

    There have been some halfhearted attempts by Democratic leaders to distance themselves from Tlaib’s remarks and Ocasio-Cortez’s plans, but the reality is that both women are expressing views that fall well within the party mainstream. Dutifully, they’re trying to mollify the “resistance” while Democratic leaders appeal to more-moderate and independent voters.

    Sure, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has insisted that Democrats are focused on healthcare and infrastructure, and not on running the president out of the Oval Office. But the difference is tactics, not objectives. The speaker and the freshmen remain united in their desire, among other things, to impose single-payer healthcare, increase environmental regulations and, yes, impeach Trump. There’s little difference between Ocasio-Cortez’s progressive cri de coeur and the campaign platforms of Elizabeth Warren and other Democratic presidential wannabes.

    It was Ocasio-Cortez’s response on Sunday to a question about marginal income-tax rates that received the most attention. When asked if she had a specific tax rate in mind, the congresswoman replied: “You look at our tax rates back in the Sixties, and when you have a progressive tax rate system … sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 per cent”. But the lesson of the 1960s is that lowering tax rates, not raising them, boosts government revenue. And it’s a lesson that the political Left continues to ignore.

    “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now,” said John F. Kennedy in 1962, when he previewed legislation that would lower personal income-tax rates among all earners. JFK was assassinated before congress could act, but his successor, Lyndon Johnson, made tax relief his top priority, and in 1964 rates fell across the board. The top marginal rate, which had been 91 per cent, was reduced to the 70 per cent cited approvingly by Ocasio-Cortez. The bottom rate fell to 14 per cent from 20 per cent, and all 22 rates in between were reduced as well. By mid-1965 revenue far exceeded what it had been in the year before the rates were lowered. Disposable income increased and unemployment fell. It was a tax reduction, not a tax increase, that swelled government coffers and financed LBJ’s great society and war on poverty.

    Kennedy and Johnson weren’t blazing any new trails in calling for tax cuts to help spur the economy. They knew it had happened before in the 1920s when Andrew Mellon, Treasury secretary under presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, oversaw a series of tax cuts that pushed the top marginal rate down to 24 per cent in 1929 from 73 per cent in 1921. As would occur again decades later, a significant increase in government revenues followed and the Twenties roared. Moreover, the wealthiest earners not only paid a larger total amount of taxes but also a higher percentage of all taxes collected. In 1920, people in the top bracket were responsible for 29.9 per cent of all federal income taxes. By 1928 they were paying more than double that share, even though their tax rate had been slashed to 20 per cent from 77 per cent.

    The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush cut high marginal rates with similar results. Instead of stashing money in tax shelters, people invested in the private economy, producing more taxable income for the federal government to spend. A mantra on the class-warfare Left is that the rich need to pay their “fair share”, yet Democrats are reluctant to reduce top marginal rates, which historically has been a surefire way to increase the tax burden carried by “the rich”. Their “anger translator” gets the best of them every time.

    The Wall Street Journal

  15. Anita

    Loved the President’s response to John the journo.

  16. lotocoti

    that strategy was not necessary

    Neither was the Second Front.
    Such is hindsight.

  17. Dr Fred Lenin

    Reagan completed the destructionof the soviet union with the help of the bolshevik aparat which was doing a good job of committing political suicide ,without Reagan it would have taken longer . Trump is now destroying the left aparat that was ruining the USA , hopefully he can drive a wedge between the few decromsts with a tiny bit of sense and the leadership which totall lacks sense or morals , just shows what rampant bribery will do to politics , must have cost soros and co a motza to buy the decromats and half the republicans ,money wasted schwartz , the peasants are awake to your corruption .

  18. max

    The Myths of Reaganomics
    Government Spending up, increase of 68%.

    Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion,

    Tax Cuts:
    the famous “tax cut” of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It’s true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was “bracket creep,” a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.

    Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president’s rhetorical sensibilities, they weren’t called tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of “fees,” “plugging loopholes” (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), “tightening IRS enforcement,” and even revenue enhancements.”

    https://mises.org/library/myths-reaganomics

  19. max

    Reagan gets too much credit for winning the Cold War. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union did not occur until the end of 1989 and 1991—when George H. W. Bush was president. The Soviet economy “had already started to decline during the late 1960s, years before Reagan took office.”

    Over the Reagan years, despite a huge and unnecessary military buildup, federal spending on social programs increased in real terms and as a percentage of the federal budget.
    Entitlement spending continued to increase from 1980 to 1987, with the three largest programs—Social Security, Medicare, and other healthcare spending—increasing 84 percent.
    Reagan traded increases in defense spending for even larger increases in nondefense spending.
    Reagan’s defense budget bought systems that were technologically infeasible, were unneeded, were white elephants, or had no viable strategic rationale.
    Despite his small government rhetoric, Reagan seemed to have little sustained desire to cut nondefense spending, actually added a cabinet department (the Department of Veterans Affairs), and increased the number of federal employees from 2.8 million to 3 million.
    During Reagan’s first term, the yearly federal budget deficit grew from 2.7 percent to a then record of 6.3 percent of GDP. By 1989, at the end of his second term, the national debt stood at $2 trillion, making him one of the worst peacetime spendthrifts in US presidential history.
    Reagan was a welfare/warfare statist. True, he was a tax cutter. But he was also a tax raiser. Reagan’s tax hikes in 1982 and 1984 “then constituted the biggest tax increase ever in peacetime.” Reagan raised taxes in six out of the eight years of his presidency, thirteen times in all. He increased payroll taxes and had “the largest increase ever in corporate taxes.” Reagan’s net tax reduction “was the smallest per capita of any Republican president during the post-World War era.”
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/02/laurence-m-vance/the-reagan-record/

  20. max

    The Reagan Years: Libertarian Rhetoric, Statist Policies
    How did Reagan manage to pursue egregiously statist policies in the name of liberty and of “getting government off our backs?” How was he able to follow this course of deception and mendacity?
    There was no “Reagan Revolution.” Any “revolution” in the direction of liberty (in Ronnie’s words “to get government off our backs”) would reduce the total level of government spending. And that means reduce in absolute terms, not as proportion of the gross national product, or corrected for inflation, or anything else.

    Reagan not only increased government spending by an enormous amount – so enormous that it would take a 40 percent cut to bring us back to Carter’s wild spending totals of 1980 – he even substantially increased the percentage of government spending to GNP. That’s a “revolution”?

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/conservative-con-man/

  21. Tom

    Steve, thanks for addending the Acosta clown show. In the US public’s imagination, the past week will be remembered only for Chuck and Nancy’s creepy Addams Family impersonation and Acosta’s comical own goal demonstrating the effectiveness of national borders.

    Apart from being a non-corruptible anti-politician who’d rather be doing something else, Trump has a godly talent for making his enemies make fools of themselves in full public glare. For that reason alone, POTUS45’s is a marvellous presidency.

  22. Win

    Pride cometh before a wall.

  23. Ivan Denisovich

    Reagan gets too much credit for winning the Cold War.

    Some of the history here:

    Each of the three leaders operated in environments where persuasive people explained why simplicity wasn’t possible, why simplicity would make things worse. Reagan best expressed the three leaders’ approach to the knots and nuances of dealing with Communism: “we win, they lose.” In Reagan’s case, his opponents howled back that this simple statement only proved his ignorance, his inability to grasp complexity………………………

    Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II kept in close communication during the tense standoffs between Soviet officials and Polish resisters in the 1980s. Reagan used his national security apparatus, including the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Administration, to help the pope better work with Polish resisters in foiling Soviet and Communist Poland attempts to crush popular opposition to government policies. Thatcher joined with Reagan in seeing that the pope had vital intelligence reports and analysis of expected Soviet moves and counter-moves…………………..

    As a reader, you might be surprised at the extent to which the papacy and the American presidency interacted on an international issue in the 1980s. Reagan and Pope John Paul II kept in very close contact on strategy, tactics, goals, and resources during the decade. It’s likely that as documents are declassified, we will see still greater evidence of the degree to which the two entities collaborated against the Soviet Union…………………………………..

    They overcame a lot of opposition. Some of it may be new to you. U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy met with and advised Soviet officials on how to OPPOSE and DEFEAT Reagan in negotiations. That’s right, you read it correctly. Kennedy sought to have the formal leader of his own nation defeated and rejected by its de facto enemy, and he worked actively to have it so. In my mind, given the context and stakes of the time, Kennedy’s actions were a step away from treasonous…………………….

    http://historicalsolutions.com/the-president-the-pope-and-the-prime-minister-three-who-changed-the-world-by-john-osullivan/

  24. Chris M

    Reagan and Pope John Paul II kept in very close contact….. evidence of the degree to which the two entities collaborated against the Soviet Union

    Yes, I read how the current Pope is similarly making great efforts to bring down the CCP.

    I think it was on Babylon Bee.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.