Slashdot Mirror
Donald Trump To Tech Leaders: 'No Formal Chain Of Command' Here (cnbc.com)
A confab of tech titans had a "productive" meeting with President-elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower on Wednesday, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos told CNBC, as Trump moved to mend fences with Silicon Valley before taking office in January. Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Intel, Oracle, IBM, Cisco and Tesla were among the C-suite executives in attendance, with Apple CEO Tim Cook and Tesla CEO Elon Musk expected to get private briefings, according to transition staff. From the report: "We want you to keep going with the incredible innovation," Trump said. "There's no one like you in the world. ... anything we can do to help this go along, we're going to be there for you. You can call my people, call me -- it makes no difference -- we have no formal chain of command around here." At the meeting, Trump introduced billionaire Wilbur Ross, his Commerce secretary pick, and Goldman Sachs executive Gary Cohn, his choice for director of the National Economic Council. "They're going to do fair trade deals," Trump said. "They're going to make it easier for you to trade across borders, because there are a lot of restrictions, a lot of problems. If you have any ideas on that, that would be great."
Trump is going to find out people are not going to "just call the president" because all of those calls get blocked by the switchboard. Trump is going to find out that casual phone calls do not happen as president, his schedule is locked down to the minute. This boiler maker atmosphere that trump seems to enjoy is going to be counter productive in an environment where decisions need to be made and then acted on and revisiting choices wastes time that needs to be used on other decisions coming in the door.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
You left out the billion dollars in property tax breaks he's gotten, putting the tax burden on everyone else (mostly in New York City).
Why not? There's still people around here blaming Bush...
Well, to the sound bite world we live in, it does sound unreasonable to blame past Presidents for current troubles. Like, why should be blame Lincoln for the getting the US through the Civil War and freeing the slaves? Why do we still blame him after all these years?!
And blaming FDR for leading us through the Depression - even though many of the programs he got through Congress really didn't work. And he dragged his feet into getting us into WWII. And blaming Truman for dropping the A-Bomb on Japan! We still do that!
MAybe - just maybe and bear with me - because it's HISTORY.
And when folks look back on the beginning of the 21st Century, they are going to see that the US went into two horrible wars based on the incompetence of the Bush II Administration. They are going the see the ramifications - like the creation of ISIS. They are going to see a budget shot to shit. They are going to see a financial collapse - that did have it's roots in the Clinton administration but never the less came to frustration with the lax regulatory environment of a Republican controlled government.
And then we'll see how the next President got stuck with the problems and through brinkmanship and obstruction by the Republicans in Congress for all 8 years of his term, he was barely able to get anything done - but blamed him for it - even though they kept on these ridiculous quests and held the government hostage to get rid of the ACA and defund Planned Parenthood over some video that was a lie.
And now that they are back in power? They are going to replace the ACA - OK good - but not get rid of it because now it's "their" idea.
So, I will keep blaming Bush for the stupidity and the utter nonsense we're in - especially the crap in the Middle East. Thanks to Bush, there will NEVER be peace in the Middle East and we the USA are going to have to deal with it for the rest of our existence - and frankly, I think it's contributing to our current downfall.
Why not? There's still people around here blaming Bush...
Most of the time you see people "blaming Bush" (and other previous administrations) is when others try to blame the Great Recession on Obama, or try to compare this recover to those which followed much smaller and less systemic recessions. If you are going to rate Obama's performance it is necessary to acknowledge he was left with the worst recession since 1929, and its more apt to compare the 2009-2016 recover with 1929-1936. Pointing that out often includes at least some casting of blame on previous administrations.
There is honestly very little to blame on Bush at this point. The systemic problems we still face either reach back to policies built up over the past 30+ years, or are primarily the result of a changing world (such as working class stagnation). At this point the only two major things I can think of to blame on Bush is the extra stimulus spending necessary because he let things get so bad and the after-effects of the war(s) he started. But even though I have little love for the man, its not very reasonable to blame many of our current problems on Bush anymore.
I'm sure people will blame Obama for leaving Trump too good of an economy, but overall he will have a hard time credibly blaming any of his problems on Obama. Then again he doesn't hasn't had to worry about his statements being credible for them to be believed so far.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Something tells me a Hillary administration appointing just one GS alum to a minor undersecretary role would have elicited a tweet storm from the right.
Someone had to do it.
Or blaming Obama for withdrawing troops from Iraq, when it was Bush who signed the agreement to do so. Point that out, and then they claim Obama should have renegotiated, despite the fact that the Iraqi government wasn't willing to agree on any terms that would have been remotely acceptable.
Or blaming Obama for the economy/budget deficit, despite the crash that took place under Bush before Obama was even elected. Could he have done more to fix it after he took office? Sure, but he was also facing huge resistance against anything he wanted to do towards that end.
This would be a bad thing because this sets the precedent of the Feds dictating what rights states have to make their own laws. What next? Would Trump then start revoking all the recent laws laws governing recreational and medical marijuana?
I am come down on the state rights side of issues. Tesla selling cars anywhere but their home state pretty clearly falls under Interstate Commerce though- it's not a corner case of interstate commerce it's right in the center of the sort of thing the Federal Govt was given the power to make rules regarding. The Feds are definately allowed to stomp on attempts by states to restrict interstate commerce.
Isn't selling a car in Texas that is built in California considered interstate commerce?
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
I'm always curious about this blame game. The "great recession" was a worldwide phenomenon. Are you suggesting that if Bush hadn't been president of the US (say, Kerry was elected instead), that the entire world would NOT have gone into recession? Or that the world would have, but the US wouldn't have? I'm just curious.
The US is a cog. An oversized and important cog no doubt, but it's just one part of the whole.
Your argument is more or less:
Clinton is beholden to big business, so let's skip the middle man and simply put big business right in the presidency.
I mean sure yes, she has close ties (find a credible politician who doesn't) but Trumps are closer. She likes big business. He IS big business. See this is the thing that doesn't ring true when Trump voters give reasons for not voting for Hillary: most of the things they complain about are actually worse in Trump's case. I think there are underlying reasons for their choice and most of what you hear is rationalization.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"Bush inherited a growing economy" Fascinating. It's as if the recession that starting in March of 2001, just two months after Bush took office never happened. Glad to see Bush haters are "all-in" on fake news. It's a tribute to Bush that recession was so shallow and quick despite the attacks on 9/11. That said, there is no doubt that part of the response to that recession directly led to the recession that started in Dec 2007, so there is that.
Keep up the good work!
As someone whose been around as a lurker from almost the beginning, i would recommend people who don't like the way the site has become take a trip down the way-back machine. Everything old is new again. The articles have always followed the same general format and subjects. The conversations have generally followed the same format and digressions. The only thing that seems to change around here are the grumpies who want to complain about how much it's changed. Sure, a few of the conversations are a little more hostile. Sometimes, but this discourse has been here from the beginning on anything that might be remotely interpreted as political. //rant: But, at the end of the day, we are all sharing our opinions in an effort to find the truth. A little open mindedness goes a long way to productive and meaningful discourse. Everybody is not always right. Calling it fake news because or a contextual error is disingenuous. You're basically take the nuclear route on your own discussion. To call out a grammatical error is acceptable.
I'll just end the rant there before I get carried away.
How the hell did this get modded up? Bush inherited a faltering economy. He entered office just after the dot-com bubble burst. His election was in Nov 2000, he entered office Jan 2001, and a President's first budget doesn't kick in until January the following year. During a President's first year, he's actually coasting along on the previous President's budget. So the 2001 recession and 9/11 (2001) actually happened before Bush's first budget went into effect (2002).
The "removed regulations" that led to the housing crisis and 2007 recession are mostly blamed on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. It was passed in 1999 and signed by... Bill Clinton. Blame is also cast on HUD lending policies mandating a larger share of loans be for affordable housing, also started under Clinton. And interest rates reduced to historically low levels to combat the sluggish economy after the dot-com bubble bursting, responsibility for which also falls upon Clinton (if you buy into the idea that Presidents are wholly responsible for the economy). You can't even blame Bush for maintaining the low interest rates through 2005. The interest rates are set by the Federal Reserve, whose chairman at the time was Alan Greenspan - a Reagan appointee retained through Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. because everyone though he was doing a great job. It was actually Bush Jr. who replaced him in 2006 with Ben Bernanke (who Obama retained).
Personally, I don't blame Presidents for bad economies. They only suggest a budget. Congress actually makes it (whether they follow any of the President's suggestions is up to them). And since we don't have a line item veto, the President has a take it or leave it choice when it comes to signing off on the whole thing. So I mostly blame Congress for bad economies, Presidents for bad executive decisions (e.g. the second Iraq war). But if you insist on blaming Presidents for bad economies, responsibility for most of what you listed falls upon Clinton, not Bush.
No no. Wait people, give this post a chance. It's actually quite insightful.
Climate change is science. But it's science that "the Left" cares about, and "the Right" does not. And talking about it therefore makes Slashdot a partisan hack and pisses off a subset of Slashdot.
This guy wants his news bubble enforced. A news site he goes to is talking about a topic he wants to ignore. And he is upset.