Sunday, December 16, 2018

Senator Schumer and the Tradition of Flaky Senatorial Palaver

It seems that every decade has its own special flaky U.S. Senator given to making inaccurate or just plain spaced statements. After Senator Helms passed on the nation was without one for a time. Senator Helms spoiled his irascible wierdness with some quality work and backbone too. Then along came Senator Lindsey Graham with a wacko opinion every week it seemed. Yet he gradually quit that and actually started sounding comparatively reasonable. He did a great dis-serve to watchers of politics when he quit the clownishness. 

So the nation has Senator Chuck Schemer to amuse them with illogic and disinterpretation of events for the present. Senators need to enrich special interests of course while accumulating wealth for-themselves. The are required to seem incapable of creative and efficient thought that would make a better more efficient and affodable government working for a better nation unceasingly for the people including the poor. Senator Schumer's public statement seem the antinomy of anything like that.

If Voters Had Known Of Moscow Project Would It Have Made a Difference?

If voters had known that the Trump organization was trying to build a hotel in Russia in 2016 would that have made a difference in the election? President Trump has properties and licensed places all over the world so overlooking Russia would have been strange.

If Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin had taken out an ad in the N.Y. Times in October 2016 saying that he was working with Donald Trump to build a hotel in Moscow (possibly) would that have elicited more than a yawn from readers?

The President of the United States made a pre-inaugural agreement that he wouldn't pursue foreign real estate or hotel deals while in office. I cannot say how far that applies to his organization. Yet it is not secretive apparently.

Wikipedia quotes Forbes magazine writing on the topic; “The Trump Organization has curtailed some of its international work, pulling out of deals in AzerbaijanGeorgia and Brazil, while pledging to do no new foreign deals (though it has apparently resurrected an old deal in the Dominican Republic). Trump’s international hotel licensing and management business only makes up $220 million of his estimated $3.5 billion fortune, but it’s the most dynamic part of the Trump portfolio—and it throws off chunks of cash with virtually no risk. As the Trumps have wound down some international deals, they continue to push forward with new domestic agreements.”

Forbes recently published an article claiming that President Putin of the Russian Federation had a hold over Donald Trump in that Donald Trump was fearful that Putin would let slip that Donald Trump had tried or was trying to build a hotel in Russia.

That President Trump was going about normal business activity is the prime plum that Special Investigator has found according to Forbes. It is underwhelming enough. President Trump also owns a Vodka making business. That should not have been overlooked for possible Russian collusion in case any Russian experts were imbibing that in 2016 as a way to divide the nation that otherwise would love Hillary, Obamacare, homosexual marriage, illegal aliens, a degrading ecosphere and twenty trillion dollars of public debt.

Saturday, December 15, 2018

Guessing P.M. May's Next Vector Fork Brexit

 British P.M. Theresa May having survived a vote of confidence test in her conservative party has some few months to get her Brexit bill passed by a recalcitrant parliament that would prefer to have her cake and eat it too or let the hard natural Brexit evolution become fact 29 May 2019 when the lines would be cut to EU pirate ships plundering British booty. What is her secret recipe the next few months?

The Brit PM might organize an alternative global economic organization with the British former Empire at the core yet welcoming anyone that wants to be member of a preferred trade and business group without any sort of social surrender requirements regarding sovereignty. It is possible that she might sell a new ecological economic trade organization that lets nations join whom are willing to work sustainable economic policies and measures within her new economic organization. At least the organization might allow just sustainable businesses the zero-tariff free trade while taxing anything else that would seek to pass through the green screen.

Probably leaving without an agreement is best for Britain insofar as Britain is enough of a party house as it is and millions of migrants arriving to plunder and trash the place wouldn't be too helpful. Alternatively may have a Russian economic collusion card she could play after Brexit is wrapped up to bring Russian into a new economic order with Britain being the non-space business brain to develop Russia for a profit.

Actually there are too many economic possibilities to enumerate in a brief note for the British PM to potentially utilize. PM May could choose a conservative Wilsonian reform direction or a liberal Thacherite equalization of trade globally within any of several potential international organizational formats She could create and lead. Instead of the many EU encumbrances that made belonging an onerous duty to those without ecological economic ideas for-themselves or for-others May's Thatcherian updates could induct new players into a more equitable business union.

Sen Schumer- Illogical Wall Funding Ideas

Senator Chuck Schumer illogically believes that because Mexico will pay indirectly for the wall through increased U.S. income from revision of NAFTA the U.S. Government doesn't need to appropriate funds to build the wall. If that sort of reasoning is typical of federal politicians it easily explains why there is a twenty trillion dollar public debt.

Senator Schumer may believe that foreign governments directly fund U.S. government projects while the Senate sits on its ambition. Yet Mueller is investigating President Trump instead of Schumer for foreign collusion.

US Judge Body Slams Obamacare- Dems May Tap Out

After a Federal Judge in Texas body slammed Obamacare ruling the individual mandate unconstitutional Democrats that forcibly snuck passage of Obamacare through a congressional recess should tap out and look for a new match for health care that actually includes the poor that must travel interstate for work annually. Those people were left out of the Obamacare program that was designed for obese middle class Democrat voters whom are sedentary.

A righteous and realistic health care bill would be multi-purpose and cover all of the poor, veterans and would serve as a national emergency health care disaster back-up facility. It would greatly expand the VA and homeless clinics, unite them and let all poor Americans with citizenship identification walk in to any of those facilities for free treatment.

Democrats could tie the system access together with a new national high-speed electric mass transit tube train infrastructure to bring patients to hospitals. Those prosperous Americans that can actually afford health care insurance or pay it out of pocket should do so and not use a system designed for anyone that cannot afford proper or any medical treatment besides band aids.

Friday, December 14, 2018

Obamacare Individual Mandate Ruled Unconstitutional

So many people knew that it was unconstitutional for the government to compel people to buy insurance and to tax other people to pay for it. A federal judge saw it that way too and ruled the Individual mandate unconstitutional. So much time wasted by Obamacare. Democrats should have just expanded VA Hospitals and homeless clinics, brought them together to treat those that are actually poor for nothing, and built a national electromagnetic tube transport system to get people to treatment locations.

Hobson's Choice of Paying off Federal Debt or Economic Growth?

There are innumerable configurations of macro-economic relations possible. Creative economic minds select one course of action for political economy and determine the present vector. Yet the U.S. Government probably is functioning to materially benefit the 1%. Three billionaires have as much wealth as 160 million U.S. citizens. Concentrating wealth allows the most rich to buy the media and control political opinion and thought to a certain extent while also closing down secure internet sites for writers to express dissenting ideas. One could reduce the federal debt (and they should) yet that would require progressive taxation and Americans have been misled to believe that higher taxes on the rich support indolent socialists that don’t want to work and want everything for nothing.
A democracy should be somewhat egalitarian and support individual independence so far as possible. Because concentrated wealth can become a political danger the progressive tax is requisite to keep the blimps tethered.
Democracy is the great middle ground between socialism and plutocracy. Democracy can serve the demographically real people best and fairly reform non-sustainable economic policy toward sustainable economic foundations that place growth in quality instead of material quantity. Most U.S. politicians are unable or unwilling to defend real democracy and progressive taxes instead of sieging the capitalist fuhrer of either party in the White House who may nominally talk about conservation of the environment but in fact doesn’t in the least move away from the concentration of wealth to the point of making the 1% royalty. One-percent economics is non-sustainable economics and completely against democracy.