Looking Forward at 2017

by William Skink

Big Swede wanted a prediction post, so here it is. It will be short.

Trump won’t be assassinated, but he will make millions of dollars by charging Uncle Sam rent to keep him safe.

Trump supporters will refuse all year to acknowledge they were duped, even despite blatant evidence, like the fact Steven Mnuchin once work with George Soros:

Mnuchin spent 17 years with Goldman Sachs, and his father worked at the bank for 30 years in stock trading.

Mnuchin was chief information officer at Goldman Sachs before he left the firm in 2002. He also worked briefly for George Soros.

The economy that’s been papered over since taxpayers bailed out Wall Street will tank, and the media will joyfully attribute the financial cataclysm to Trump and all the racist country bumpkins who elected him. Because that was the plan all along.

Obama will take his failed presidency and blood-soaked Nobel Peach Prize to the UN to join the globalists new global war against the reactionary tides of nationalism rising in Europe and the States.

There will be a cyber attack on our electrical grid and a renewed push to implement smart-grid technology.

Efforts to eliminate cash will accelerate, with an attempt to phase out Benjamin Franklin picking up speed.

I will launch a new website, but it won’t attract any web traffic, so I will blame Russia then start wearing people at every City Council meeting as I replace Candy Matthew-Jenkins, making rambling commentary every Monday evening.

The local media will miss an opportunity to tell the story of a woman’s unnecessary death (and the institutions that could have saved her) because they will be too busy writing fluff pieces about alcohol sales and refugees.

At the State Legislative session, critical infrastructure needs and fixes for institutions in crisis–like the University system, the Public Defenders Office, Child Protective Services and the Criminal Justice System in general–will get short-changed after time is wasted over Missoula’s gun ordinance and the refugee issue.

Happy New Year!

About Travis Mateer

I'm an artist and citizen journalist living and writing in Montana. You can contact me here: willskink at yahoo dot com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Looking Forward at 2017

  1. Big Swede says:

    1. Trump won’t spend a 10 million dollars of tax payer money a year on lavish vacations like Obama.

    2. MT Democrats again will throw their support behind a far left liberal candidate dooming the their chances on replacing Zinke for the US House seat.

    3. Trump will build a wall but the wall won’t be the entire length of the southern border.

    4. Obama will appoint his justice for the supreme court in the 10 minutes between the old and new congress.

    5. North Korea will attempt to send a missile toward the western US.

    And finally, Al Gore’s plane will crash on some Alaskan glacier which was supposed to be melted. He survives the cash but while waiting for a rescue is eaten by a polar bear.

  2. Eric says:

    That’s a pessimistic post – you’re kind of a glass-is-half-empty man, aren’t you?


    Trump starts building the wall.

    He rescinds many of Obama’s “Pen & Phone” illegal actions.

    He drops the non-participation penalty from Obamacare and starts tearing it apart piecemeal.

    The GOP threatens Congressional Dems that if they don’t cooperate the Trump-regime will prosecute Hillary and Eric Holder.

    That in Montana Jon Tester becomes “Max Jr” and kisses Trumps ring.

    That the Trump-Tsunami isn’t going to weaken right away, and the GOP keeps Ryan Zinkes seat easily.

    That The Oakland Raiders, without Derek Carr lose the Wild card game this weekend.

    • how much evil federal government deficit spending are you willing to see go to private contractors to build that wall?

      and please explain why a Goldman Sachs Soros boy at Treasury doesn’t signal to you something maybe stinks about Trump.

      as to being a pessimist, I’ve been called worse.

    • JC says:

      I don’t think democrats understood the question. As usual they want any president to be successful, just not at the things trump and congress successfully are going to do to them. That 57 percent are so politically ignorant they think a good old butt f*cking is a good thing.

      • Big Swede says:

        What’s so difficult about this question?

        “Do you want Donald Trump’s presidency to be a success or a failure?”

        • JC says:

          The question on the surface is simple. What dems don’t understand is that in order for Trump to be a successful president he will have to ram a bunch of policies the dems hate down their throat. “Please beat me some more.” Dems wanting Trump to succeed is pure masochism for them.

  3. Big Swede says:

    I see JC, so being successful only means in terms of ideology, while ignoring the real unemployment numbers, our security, and dramatic rises in insurance premiums/deductibles.

    • JC says:

      What one wants to describe as a “success” is nebulous. The question as asked doesn’t give any value to the term, or any specific policies. So any individual can breathe whatever fantasy they want into it. I’m reminded of “hope and change.” Democrats filled in the fantasy blanks as to what that meant, and were horribly dissappointed.

      As to Trump, or any other president, what is it to be “successful?” There are places I would like to see Trump succeed — like building detente with Russia. He’s already tanked the TPP, which is a huge success in my view. But overall? It’s nebulous. I would not want him to succeed with the privatization of federal lands. I don’t want him to succeed with appointing right-wing judges. I don’t want his personal business enterprises to succeed to the detriment of other public or private enterprises. I don’t want him to succeed building a wall against Mexico (“Mr. Trump, tear down that wall!”). I don’t want to see him succeed in ramping up the war on drugs, or furthering the incarceration state. On and on.

      But my fantasies in any area that I’d like a generic president to succeed in is just that: fantasy. If I was asked a question like the one posed above, I’d say “define success.” Then when the questioner refused to, I’d say “next question please.”

      To the three things you mention — unemployment numbers, security, and health care — who knows.

      I think you and I could agree that if the government looked at the true numbers concerning employment in the economy, we’d agree that some transparency and honesty would reveal how bad employment really is. Do I think that Trump will succeed in bringing transparency to how we report on the economy? Only if it serves to illustrate positive movement, but not negative. When we go into the next recession (inevitable), and employment tanks, will Trump’s administration look to report real numbers? Or BLS propaganda? I think the answer to that question is obvious. Trump cannot bear to be on the losing side of any issue/battle, and as with his “win” as president, he will do everything to whitewash numbers, whether its the number of votes he lost by, or the numbers of people who have left the job force (or not being able to find a real job, and have given up on Job Service centers for employment), and therefore are no longer reported as “unemployed.”

      As to security, I’m not sure what you mean, or that we could agree on what success would mean. I ultimately would look at success with security here as avoiding WWIII and any other interventions like we’ve had in the ME. Detente would make for a huge security success, and having a good understanding and working relationship with China would assist that. I view security here as meaning a return to a multi-polar world, as opposed to a unipolar one where we dictate, and pay for the consequences with terrorism. Would I view at Trump’s presidency as a whole as a “success” if we avoid WWIII? Probably not. Failing to come to grips with the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and transition to non polluting forms of energy in the long run is as much a failure as nuclear winter. One is immediate, the other is long and drawn out suffering. I’d look at Trump’s energy policy as a success if he’d just admit that we’re increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and work to mitigate that and damn the details of what that means.

      And lastly, for health care, its not about premiums and deductibles. It’s about the structure of the system, and profit. Drive the profit motive out of the system and costs will go down, significantly. Allow the fed to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceuticals, and enact some regulation against the advertising of prescription drugs, and the price goes down more. I would view success in health care as the closer we get to universal coverage, the more successful it is. How it is paid for is another thing. The concept of “insurance” is the wrong model for health care. A single payer model (not synonymous with universal coverage) from birth to death, whether government-run or privately-run spreads out the costs across every individual’s life, making health care affordable for all. But do I believe that TrumpCare will improve the condition of our health care morass? Nope, particularly not with the republican congress writing the bill. Trump and republicans will fail horribly with health care, and people will suffer and die. Will they succeed to pin the inevitable tail of failure on the donkey? Only time will tell. Me wanting Trump to succeed by enacting my chosen health care solutions is just a fantasy. It will never happen, and I don’t believe I will be seeing any sort of national health care success in the next 4 years.

      • Big Swede says:

        You’ll notice I never mentioned Russia, in fact the current President is more bent on warring with the Bear than Donald so your fears of WWIII are unfounded.

        Economies grow and economies constrict but when its comes to recession cycles the government can prolong the misery. If Trump thru his policies can put people back to work with full time high paying jobs your side is toast, at least for eight years.

        My dental care insurance has only risen sightly and my car insurance has dropped because over the years because the absence of governmental interference.

        • JC says:

          Sure, the article just says U.S. bombs, when it really meant bombs dropped by the U.S. All those bombs dropped in Somalia and Yemen by the Saudis were mostly U.S. bombs, too. Not to mention that our tanker planes had been refueling the Saudi bombers during their strikes.

        • JC says:

          As to fears of WWIII, I’m reminded about how the CIA set up Kennedy in Cuba and Vietnam. Trump’s announced shakeup at the CIA is all about trying to head off the same treatment. I’m sure he’s aware of how it turned out for JFK after he canned Dulles and shook the agency up, getting in the way of their agenda.

          So while Trump may pursue detente, other powers greater than he will do otherwise. It will be a power struggle to see whose foreign policy actually reigns. Neocons and neolibs would like nothing more than to start an unwanted war that Trump would have to get bogged down in, if for no other reason than revenge for beating Clinton.

  4. Eric says:

    Hey JC – I’m not asking this to be snarky, but why not go into medicine to make a profit?

    It’s a business.

    If you go to college, and medical school, nobody pays your way, you graduate with student loan debt that makes a mortgage seem like a minor detail. You HAVE to make a lot of money.

    Reading through the Constitution, there is no involuntary servitude. So if an Amendment to the Constitution is passed, making health care a right, we would have to force medical professionals to treat everybody, for nothing, thereby making them slaves.

    Does that sound right to you, or maybe should everybody get paid, and the business of providing medical services stay profitable?

    • Big Swede says:

      Everybody should get paid.

      DailyCaller: At least three Democratic senators own significant health care industry stocks that could undermine their Senate leadership’s push against the nomination of Rep. Tom Price, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee as Secretary of Health and Human Services, The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group has learned.

      Price, a Georgia Republican, has been harshly criticized by Democrats for owning up to $300,000 worth of stocks in major health care companies like Aetna, Amgen, Athena Health, Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Price has been among the most vocal Obamacare critics in Congress.

      • Big Swede says:

        Rest of the story.

        “But the attack on Price could be blunted by the three Democratic senators also owning significant stock in health care firms. The Democrats’ ownership interests were listed in Senate financial disclosure forms reviewed by TheDCNF.”-DailyCaller

      • JC says:

        Yep, corruption reigns mightily in Congress (republicans included), and in those who are being nominated to admin posts. Drain the swamp, including Congress! It will only get worse.

    • JC says:

      Why not go into medicine to make a profit? I’ll tell you why. You’ve got two doctors, one will charge you $5,000 to get your appendix removed. The other will charge you $6,000. Which would you choose? Do you want to save money, or will the more expensive doctor improve your changes of surviving the procedure? You have no way of knowing. The profit model in medicine is contra-indicated to making good choices.

      And where we have competition between entities like hospitals, Missoula is a good example. When the two hospitals cooperated, services weren’t duplicated, and procedures were cheaper. When the nonprofit Community Hospital went private, services immediately began to be duplicated with competition pushing the prices up, and some services being dropped to pay for the services to duplicate. As such, many things have suffered, including emergency care (Life Flight being outsourced to an out-of-state company), maternity wards in both hospitals duplicate services, so neither can afford to specialize in critical care — leading to outsourcing procedures to Salt Lake and Seattle. And on and on.

      I don’t have a problem with private businesses in health care — in fact my partner runs a successful medical practice, but without the profit motive. Just straight fee for service. Your description of college educated doctors points to the problem with the system. We require doctors and other practitioners to accumulate huge debt. Paying off debt isn’t profit, it’s an expense. And investing in a medical service doesn’t have to show profit to employ many people and provide good outcomes. But when profit enters the equation, inevitably people’s health suffers as profit and paper shuffling take money away from care. It is a nonproductive form of capital in the one area people can least afford it: with their lives.

      And your reading of the notions of rights and the constitution is not very useful. You can have a universal, single-payer health care system without a constitutional right. And it can have a separate private, for-profit ancillary health care system for those who don’t mind paying profit to outfits for things like penile erection pills, boob jobs, and the like. Or for the mega-bucks procedures that do nothing to improve health and cure disease, but only delay death for a matter of weeks or months.

      And again, everybody getting paid does not mean you have to have profit. That’s the problem with your thinking here. There are many models in countries around the world where health care works just fine and has good outcomes (and in many cases better than ours), and medical practitioners there get paid (if not more than here) in the absence of profit. Profit actually reduces the level of compensation in the U.S. compared to many countries with universal coverage.

      Profit and the huge middleman (paperwork and paper-pushers) in modern American have conspired to degrade our health care, while making it the most expensive in the world. And I have yet to hear one peep from Congress or Trump how they are going to reduce medical costs (not insurance costs) significantly.

Leave a Reply