Time for a fresh Triump thread, now that the man is in office. There is bound to be much to discuss.

If you look at the projected costs (trillions) of Obamacare over the next 10 years ANY administration that was not involved in its creation would review it. Obamacare was under attacked long before Trump came onto the scene, and ANY Republican President would almost be obligated to follow the direction of congress.

It doesn't matter what Obamacare is, it was trying to overcome a system in equilibrium, the US health system is what it is, a function of the society.

Making any changes were never going to be perfect. And Obamacare is far from that. Now that Obama can cannot control the message (and hide the true costs) it makes sense to review it. Value for money has to be part of any government expense.

Just look at any number of independent articles, and many people realise Obamacare has to be changed. Whether they will get rid of it completely requires legislation not an executive order. Obamacare is an Act.

I too would like to know more about Obamacare. Instinctively it seems to me like a good policy, and I don't understand the fuss about it, nor why many are so keen to repeal it. After being delighted that Obama was elected, and sadly disillusioned by his failure to achieve much of anything positive after 8 years in office, it seems to me that Obamacare is about the only positive legacy he has.

But I acknowledge that my view of Obamacare is simply an uninformed and instinctive one from the other side of the Pond, so I would really welcome an objective explanation of what it achieves and why it has critics.

Can Bobby Charlton and Arthur Scargill now be retired from the list of most implausible hair styles?

M. Courtney. I find it difficult to understand what Obamacare is all about, however companies that previously gave employees cover found it cheaper to stop the cover and pay the fine - law of unexpected consequences I suppose. It is horrendously complicated you can read an explanation of it here.

geronimo.

Thanks for the link. I feel better-informed. On balance, it still seems to me that Obamacare is a good thing, though not without its issues.

From what I've read about Obamacare, admittedly very little, is that it was never popular with a large proportion of Americans and that promises about existing cover not going up in cost were soon found to be economic with the actuality. There were also other unexpected consequences as geronimo says.

On other fronts President Trump may have problems delivering on some of his promises, I can't see any closed steelworks re-opening during is first, or even second term. Some car plants might reopen/be built. Things like electronics though the tariff barriers would have to be very high to make home manufacture competitive. Despite what people say in surveys when it comes down to limited cash and purchases you go for a phone plus food rather than a phone and no food. One of the advantages China has in a lot of manufacturing is that when demand increases beyond capacity they have an almost limitless resource of very cheap labour to throw at the problem, the only thing that makes labour expensive is increased wealth. China has a long way to go before that solves President Trump's issue with China and the problem country moves elsewhere. I'm old enough to remember the days of "It's a cheap Japanese copy of a famous European brand" which now "It was an expensive Japanese product now manufactured cheaply in China"

Whatever Trump is, he understands business. It seems his primary economic push via regulation is to reduce energy costs. Energy costs for manufacture. When people say "Even China believes in Climate change"..."No shit Batman!", higher energy costs are always in China's favour until they decide they are "developed" and not "developing" (plus the added benefit of making green energy products, win-win). Trump made this point during election and was attacked by everyone for it.

What I haven't worked out how that balances out with closing the market. Closing the market always raises unskilled labour costs. Is he hoping for movement of labour? Factories returning to low cost areas? I have no idea.

He isn't stupid, he isn't an ignoramus. He isn't a caricature. He isn't any different than the rich and powerful people I have met. In fact he seems a little "better" because the his treatment of women, and respect of his family is actually better.

Two days after the inauguration, America to save, and Trump's media spokesman is complaining about media coverage on the size of the crowd. You would think there would be more significant news to report

What worries me is that the numbers quoted by the spokesman and the numbers quoted by the media do not match. The spokesman claimed that the crowd for Trump was the largest on record, which photos and data suggest was not the case.

Two days in, and The Trump administration is already producing lies. Will we have to fact-check everything for they publish for the next four years?

Jan 22, 2017 at 1:54 PM | Entropic man

Perhaps if you want to do some fact checking, you could start with finding out who funded and co-ordinated all these demonstrations, and why? How much money had they "invested" in Podesta's corrupt campaigning for more corruption?

Do remember that Hillary Clinton was considered the worse candidate. How bad, evil, despicable etc, does that make her?

Golf Charlie

Finance? Who knows?

Why? Trump's reaction to the media discussion on the small size of his crowd demonstrates how much pride he has invested in numbers. The protesters turned out a bigger crowd than attended the inauguration. What better way to humiliate that blowhard?

I find myself agreeing with tomo's post at 7.02pm and Entropic Man's at 1.24pm.

I do not like Trump, and I have no great hopes for his Presidency. The "Israel's best friend" act has already produced an Israeli policy of building 500 homes in the contested east Jerusalem, which doesn't look like a policy conducive to finding a peaceful solution to that country's problems.

On the other hand, I recognise a witch hunt when I see one, and there is no doubt in my mind again that the MSM have it in for him, and will hound him remorselessly, regardless of what he does or does not do. I prefer to judge him on his acts and omissions, not find fault regardless.

On the other hand again, the petulant and childish response of Trump and his team to MSM suggestions that many more people attended Obama's inauguration 8 years ago than attended his on Friday does not augur well. He's President of the United States for goodness' sake! Surely he should be capable of a dignified response (e.g. "yes my numbers were smaller, but I suspect many people stayed away because they were afraid of trouble - and they were right when you look at the disgusting behaviour of some of the protestors"). Or he could have just ignored it. His response makes him look like a petty schoolkid. Not a good start, and if he's always going to rise to the bait like this, then they'll finish him off.