Cancel Order for New Airforce One!?

[SHM]

https://mobile.twitter.com/AntonovCompa ... 882884?p=v

[D-ECHO]

Well, as this guy seems to will cost the US tax payers billions and billions a day for security (e.g. guards having to live in Trump Tower, paying rent to who? Trump!) it could be rather fair if he uses his own plane But if you see he at all won't be able to use it because of the 8 years production, that could be the reason for him to cancel

[Lydiot]

This sounds like more politics than economics to me.

Of course. Trump is a joke. US politics is a joke.

[HJ1an]

The Antonov tweet was hilarious

[jwocky]

Well, of course, if Trump brings $50 billion investments into the US, in the eyes of the lefties, it has to be a bad thing. And if he cancels an overpriced $4 billion plane to re-negotiate, it has to be bad. I mean, it is not that the US taxpayer coudl use a break, so go, make debt, spend spend spend and drool over the picture of the guy who has piled up the biggest amount of debt ever a ruler in the history of mankind piled up on his population while demonize the guy who saves some money.
Oh, and here is another funny thing, you are aware, that the Secret Service isn't living in the White House? They come in to do their shifts. They have offices in Washington and can also use in this case, the FBI Field Office New York as base. So ... they wouldn't have to live at Trump Tower. But see, with every President, this kind of evolving security planes comes up, it's part of the security business. Martha's Vineyard has a permanent security command post, while Michelle Obama flew with her friends to Spain, they had one in Barcelona then in Madrid.
The difference in this case is in two things. Of course, it's Trump Tower, so they could be actually as near as in many other places and situations. And it belongs to the Trump Corporation. Soooo ... if Trump takes no direct influence as he is supposed by the law, they will rent for a price that is not too bad for the area. If he takes direct influence, for example to cut the taxpayer a slack, all lefties will howl about the bad billionaire again. Btw, did Hilary get ever a bill for using AF1 some times on her campaign? That would pay the regular rent in Trump Tower for a year, wouldn't it?

[Lydiot]

Well, of course, if Trump brings $50 billion investments into the US, in the eyes of the lefties, it has to be a bad thing.

Of course not, don't be an idiot. Nobody is questioning whether or not it's bad to bring in 50bn in investments, if anything people are wondering if the 100bn investment fund would still have spent half in the US (we already know Trump is a blatant liar, so his words won't prove shit here), and secondly if a merger between Sprint and T-Mobile really is in the best interest of the consumer, or if we want more competition instead of less (curious how so many "righties" are in favor of less competition it seems).



Just casually angling that paper so that everyone can see it... probably not on purpose at all... Twitter-length message too... everyone can read it without getting tired...

And if he cancels an overpriced $4 billion plane to re-negotiate, it has to be bad.

I think people here were saying both that spending a lot of money unnecessarily is a bad thing (you agree), as well as 4bn for two planes actually doesn't seem to be that much, assuming the figure is correct and assuming that there's more to it than a simple plane and that it includes support etc....

I mean, it is not that the US taxpayer coudl use a break, so go, make debt, spend spend spend and drool over the picture of the guy who has piled up the biggest amount of debt ever a ruler in the history of mankind piled up on his population

I don't think anyone is drooling over George W Bush.

[jwocky]

Lol. George W. Bush, and we can probably all agree, he wasn't the best of all US Presidents, made per year of his presidency almost 0.5 trillion debt. 4 trillion over his eight years. Obama made 10 trillion in total, a little over, makes roughly 1.25 tn dollars debt per year of his presidency. So, stop drooling over Obama's picture.
Well, and we will see about that money. Opposite to Hilary, who was caught often enough lying. Trump wasn't caught blatantly lying about anything yet. That is only an invention of the Hilary campaign ... who also lied about uranium for Russia and kickbacks, about email servers and her health state.
Oh, and the Sprint/T-Mobile merger ... yeah, I guess, you didn't bother to read their last quarter reports to the stockholders? Or their balances end of last year? Or did any background research? Because if so, what did you see? You are so smart, tell me what did you see? Especially since you like the buzzline "more competition" so much. There is something really really easy to find for someone who can read numbers or think. So, you are so smart Lydiot, tell us, what did you actually find? Because if not, people may think, you are just the hot air machine from the left. Buzzlines and no knowledge.

[KL-666]

To me a discussion is on a subject, not a complete personality. You put arguments forward on the subject to get a better understanding of each others position on that subject. By saying "Oh, you just say that because you are extreme left (or extreme right)", you will never understand someones position on the subject discussed.

Categorizing in left and right has it's own difficulties. Many people have standpoints on some subjects you may call left, and on others you may call right. Most people are not fully on one side or the other. I know very conservative people who defend social security. They may have different arguments for defending it than a more left oriented person, but the result is the same: they agree on defending social security. Calling the conservative person a "leftie" for this, does not help in understanding this person at all.

So a world view in which you see all the people fully on the left, or fully on the right is incorrect. It is more like that most people hover around the center, having some left and some right standpoints on different subjects. If i look at the standpoints i take on different subjects, i should be somewhat between 50/50 and 75/25 left/right.

I enjoy it when good arguments *on the subject* are going back and forth in a discussion. But i get disinterested when it becomes unrealistic framing of entire characters, calling each other leftie and rightie.

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

Lol. George W. Bush, and we can probably all agree, he wasn't the best of all US Presidents, made per year of his presidency almost 0.5 trillion debt. 4 trillion over his eight years. Obama made 10 trillion in total, a little over, makes roughly 1.25 tn dollars debt per year of his presidency. So, stop drooling over Obama's picture.

You must have failed economy 101 or never calculated the derivative on a graph. Look at the direction of US debt and budget deficit/surplus over the course of W's and Obama's both terms, and then remember that there was a horrible crash on the market in 2008 when Obama was NOT president. If you do that and take off your partisan blinders for like a minute you see clearly what Obama inherited.

Who signed TARP into law, Bush or Obama? How big was TARP when signed?

Well, and we will see about that money. Opposite to Hilary, who was caught often enough lying. Trump wasn't caught blatantly lying about anything yet.

Do you really want to go there? I'll go there if you want to...

That is only an invention of the Hilary campaign ... who also lied about uranium for Russia and kickbacks, about email servers and her health state.

"brought to you by Breitbart TM"

[Lydiot]

To me a discussion is on a subject, not a complete personality. You put arguments forward on the subject to get a better understanding of each others position on that subject. By saying "Oh, you just say that because you are extreme left (or extreme right)", you will never understand someones position on the subject discussed.

Categorizing in left and right has it's own difficulties. Many people have standpoints on some subjects you may call left, and on others you may call right. Most people are not fully on one side or the other. I know very conservative people who defend social security. They may have different arguments for defending it than a more left oriented person, but the result is the same: they agree on defending social security. Calling the conservative person a "leftie" for this, does not help in understanding this person at all.

So a world view in which you see all the people fully on the left, or fully on the right is incorrect. It is more like that most people hover around the center, having some left and some right standpoints on different subjects. If i look at the standpoints i take on different subjects, i should be somewhat between 50/50 and 75/25 left/right.

I enjoy it when good arguments *on the subject* are going back and forth in a discussion. But i get disinterested when it becomes unrealistic framing of entire characters, calling each other leftie and rightie.

Kind regards, Vincent

Again I agree with you. The problem is as I pointed out earlier that politics and political discourse in the US is just a big joke. People are told from early on that there's left and there's right, conservative and liberal, capitalist or socialist, and that that's it. Nothing else. So their worldview mirrors that. In fact, so does society in general, with buyers and sellers and plaintiffs and defendants etc, always a two-sided situation in which negotiation decides who has the strongest leverage and this takes the largest share of whatever gain there is to be had.

That's the US for the most part.