Saturday, December 03, 2016

Saturday & Sundry Thoughts on Steven Mnuchin, another Trump pick

Stumped for a topic this weekend - I dunno, absent further unexpected eventualities it looks as though we are going to be stuck with Donald Trump as president, at least until he's impeached or whatever, so how about snooping at another of his cabinet picks, via natal chart?

Steven Mnuchin - from Wikipedia
Steven Terner Mnuchin (born December 21, 1962) is an American banker, film producer, and political fundraiser. He was a partner for Goldman Sachs for 17 years where he accrued a net worth estimated at about $40 million. He then founded the motion picture firm, RatPac-Dune Entertainment. In 2016, he served as finance chair in the successful Donald J. Trump presidential campaign.

On November 30, 2016, it was announced that Mnuchin would be nominated as Secretary of the Treasury in the coming administration of President-elect Donald Trump...........

He was born in New York City on 21 December 1962. Chart is set for 12 noon as his birth time isn't available.

I'm looking at the chart, trying to remain"cold", neutral, not relating it to anything I've read about its owner's past doings, ethics etc. other than that he's one of Donald Trump's recent picks for his administrative team, on the finance side.

Here's a second Trump pick with connection to the film industry, (Steve Bannon is another). In Mnuchin's natal chart Neptune (film) is conjunct Venus, planet of the arts.

 Donald Trump's  natal chart
His natal Sun in late Sagittarius is in harmonious trine to Mars in Leo. Mnuchin's Mars, by the way, is conjunct Donald Trump's natal Mars and ascendant. Trump's chart is at right, for reference. Mnuchin's natal Sun in late Sagittarius in within 7 degrees of Donald Trump's natal Sagittarius Moon - good links for a working relationship.

This is also another of Trump's picks with some Scorpio in his makeup - see also posts on Stephen Bannon and Jeff Sessions.

Mnuchin's natal Moon would have been either in late Libra or early Scorpio, depending on time of birth, so perhaps there's even an additional dose of Scorpio included.

He's all about finance and film really - film has been spotted in his chart, where's the finance?

Mercury in down to earth and business oriented Capricorn, with and Capricorn's ruler, Saturn, in Aquarius is the likely "ground zero" of his draw to a life in what has to be a risky choice, but highly profitable if clever enough: finance. Saturn (limitation, restriction) in its ancient sign of rulership Aquarius, and quirky Uranus in strict Virgo reflect a kind of dumbing down of Uranus' and Aquarius' natural tendency to be unexpected or eccentric: a strict planet in a looser sign and a looser planet in a strict sign....whether that helps to bring forth a financier type I don't know.

Jupiter conjunct Chiron in Pisces - quite gentle, but they sit opposite Uranus and Pluto in Virgo - it's almost another dumbing down - or probably a beefing up!

I wouldn't see this chart as classic for a finance guy, but then he's not yer classic finance guy - his film industry links give him the quirk often absent in classic finance guys.

Currently Mnuchin is engaged to Scottish actress Louise Linton, whose birthday is also 21 December though in 1981 - she's the lady in the photograph.


mike said...

Mnuchin's Sun is near Trump's Moon, but I wouldn't describe this as congenial, as their Suns are within orb of opposition, and each others' Mercury are in opposition. Not a show-stopper, but I would anticipate Mnuchin to be detail oriented against Trump's free-flying impulsiveness. Add Mnuchin's Saturn opposed to Trump's Pluto while inconjunct Mercury, perhaps fostering control issues between the two. There are a number of semi-sextiles between the two charts, but as I've mentioned previously, semi-sextiles can be disruptive when transits make aspects...a transiting planet will square one and sextile the other, or trine one and square the other, making the two guys out-of-step. I don't see aspects that strongly unite these two.

Both will benefit from the long transiting trine of Saturn to Uranus, forming a grand trine with their natal Mars. A double-edged sword for Trump, as this grand trine will be concomitant with transiting Saturn conjunct his Moon and N Node, opposing his Sun-Uranus-N Node. Transiting Saturn is currently opposing Trump's Uranus. This occurs between Trump's 4th and 10th houses, so the cabinet that he is building now (foundation and home) is opposed to his standing in the outer world (social status and career).

Twilight said...

mike ~ I see what you're saying (re the Sun-Moon). It depends how one interprets oppositions. I don't think they are always "bad", I try to see them as balancing aspects rather than outright negative in "effect".

Yes, I noticed the semi-sextiles, can be both helpful and difficult, depending on the transiting planet.

These two might not become best friends but I do think there's some "draw", maybe non-astrological, between them. The film industry could be it. Maybe Donald Trump feels more comfortable with Mnuchin due to his diverse background, than he would with a straight-ahead financier with whom he couldn't discuss things without feeling out of his depth.

The cabinet Trump is building is disappointing, though I guess not unexpected by many.
It begins to remind me of an old film plot device (trope), where a leader goes out to choose suitable helpers needed to undertake a difficult but specific task, sometimes a worthy task, sometimes not. For example, tasks from a few movies that come to mind immediately: revenging a wrong, destroying some wartime adversary, carrying out a daring heist etc etc). Individuals chosen are always disreputable rogues, even criminals, but extremely skillful in given areas. So Trump's picks could be seen as his Wild Bunch or [Un]Magnificent Seven, his Unforgiven, or his Sneakers or ....LOL! T'ain't funny though.

Twilight said...

mike ~ Is GiGi feeling any better now, able to walk?

mike (again) said...

Trump's cabinet is beyond disappointing! Makes Clinton's ties and connections seem like pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, in my opinion. Mnuchin is probably the least threatening of the bunch, but so much for dumping Wall Street...or draining that swamp. The other cabinet member selects are characters out of an as-yet Quentin Tarantino flick, "Alt-right Neoliberals for 'Merica". Trump's pompous banquet provided to Carrier before he's even prez is a bad omen...even Sarah Palin denounced it, believe it or not. Nothin' good comin' outta this dude (dud), Twilight, nuttin' good.

Re GiGi - Thanks, she's doing much better. Mouth swelling and cuts are diminishing rapidly, so she's eating again. She regained use of her leg and foot, but I have to keep putting medication on it twice daily for a while, and she dislikes my tampering with her foot, making my job harder. I'll get her patched-up and ready for the next medical adventure...LOL.

Twilight said...

mike (again) ~ Sarah Palin and Bernie Sanders on the same page - who could ever have imagined that! She's probably feeling peeved that Trump hasn't called on her to be on his squad.

Trump's Carrier adventure didn't seem too negative a sign to me. Corporations are likely to get tax breaks in any case - or find deliberate loopholes. At least some jobs have been saved, some people will have easier minds this Christmas. It could be seen as a ham-fisted attempt to show that he meant what he has said, many times, in his campaign speeches.

I bet there'll be a lot of ham-fistedness going on in coming months and years, some of which might even have side-benefits, many definitely not.

So pleased to read that GiGi is improving. :-)

mike (again) said...

Re Carrier - It was generous of Indiana's Gov Mike Pence and P-elect Trump to donate Indiana tax payers' $7-million to Carrier to keep 800 jobs in Indiana, though Carrier (United Technology) is still shipping 1,300 jobs now in Indiana to Mexico in 2017.

I wonder what $7-million could buy the tax payers in Indiana?

"Scott County, Indiana, the center of an exploding HIV outbreak, has been without an HIV testing center since early 2013, when the sole provider — a Planned Parenthood clinic — was forced to close its doors. The clinic did not offer abortion services.
... Indiana’s GOP-led state legislature was one of the first to declare war against Planned Parenthood in 2011, when it passed a bill that defunded the family planning provider because some of its clinics offer abortion services. A federal judge later blocked that law from going into effect, but the state has continued to slash various sources of funding to Planned Parenthood at a time when the cost of operating a medical facility continues to rise.
... In 2005, Planned Parenthood of Indiana received a total of $3.3 million in funding from government contracts and grants. By 2014, that funding had dropped to $1.9 million."

Twilight said...

mike (again) ~ Not so good then....but would Clinton, or Obama, have done anything at all?

mike (again) said...

We won't know what Clinton would have done. We do know Obama's strategies on this topic, though he has been bogged by a Republican, do-nothing Congress. There are many aspects to outsourcing of jobs.

We Americans are selfish. We want a high standard of living, but provided on a cheap budget. We, the 99%, live in the upper 5% of global wealth and feel impoverished, and we don't want to share our wealth with our global neighbors. Outsourcing is a means to equalize wealth and it provides Americans with the cheap goods that we love. We will select low priced, high quality merchandise made in foreign countries rather than buying American-made. We don't want manufacturing pollution in our backyards, either. Our quality of life and health is increased by outsourcing.

Something to consider is that we are the second largest exporter of goods and the USA earns $1.5-trillion from these exports:
We are the globe's largest importer, at $2.3-trillion:

If Americans want to keep jobs in the USA, then we need to bite the bullet, buy American-made, and pay additional costs for those products. Should Americans feel strongly about this, then we should all insist that vendors provide American-made products. Manufacturers will get the message very quickly. There's really no need for state or federal intervention, as each of us makes a choice with every purchase.

It's a two-way street with USA imports and exports. The Trump proposal to impose a 35% levy on imports will have ramifications for our exports. Trump's aggrandizing of the Carrier-Indiana deal leaves the tax payers of Indiana on the hook for $7-million, he didn't impose import sanctions on Carrier, and Carrier (United) is now keeping 800 jobs, but outsourcing 1,300 to Mexico. Some deal, eh?

mike (again) said...

Here was a plan proposed by Obama, but Repubs didn't like it, or should say that their lobbyists didn't approve...LOL. The funds were to be used for USA infrastructure improvements:
"Reviving a long-running debate about corporate tax avoidance, Obama will target a loophole that lets companies pay no tax on earnings held abroad, the White House said. But his proposal was certain to encounter stiff resistance from Republicans."

mike (again) said...

“Rexnord of Indiana is moving to Mexico and rather viciously firing all of its 300 workers,” Trump said in that tweet. “This is happening all over our country. No more!”

In answer, Sanders tweeted: “What are you going to do, @realDonaldTrump? Stand up for working people or give the company a massive tax break?”

Twilight said...

mike (again) ~ There's really no need for state or federal intervention, as each of us makes a choice with every purchase.

Right, but at the moment there is no (or hardly any) choice - so there is need for intervention, in my opinion.

I try to avoid "made in China" items but it's getting more and more difficult to find alternatives. I often prefer to by pre-owned articles, which don't have that China tag, but even these are becoming harder to find now than they were a few years ago. Even high-priced "designer" clothing items are now made in China - brands such as Ralph Lauren, and traditionally American brands like Sperry deck shoes, Eddie Bauer, and on and on. Quality and reliable sizing are all over the place. Everything feels "shoddy".

Bernie Sanders is right, of course. Massive tax breaks for companies are wrong, but Trump's actions are at least giving Bernie an opening to point out his views, and what would be a better way.

To my mind all blame for Trump's presidency and whatever problems it brings us lies with the DNC - they, and the Clintons and a controlled media, were instrumental in Bernie Sanders' loss. There was a chance for something better, it was manipulated away. The USA will have to deal with the result. I'm not feeling too sympathetic these days.

mike (again) said...

You said, "...all blame for Trump's presidency and whatever problems it brings us lies with the DNC." That's one way to look at it and so many are in agreement with you. I don't agree, but I doubt that you and others care to be objective, as evidenced by the many essays and consequent comments that abound on the net.

The DNC shares blame for Bernie's loss by providing Hillary's purchased super-delegates, though there were other factors, too. "Time for a Woman POTUS" was part, but the aberrant view of socialism shared by the average, voting American had much to do with Bernie's struggle.

There are WAY too many reasons why Trump excelled having nothing to do with the DNC. One reason is:
"Republican strategists spent years developing a plan to take advantage of the 2010 census, first by winning state legislatures and then redrawing House districts to tilt the playing field in their favor. Their success was unprecedented. In states like Ohio, Michigan and North Carolina, Republicans were able to shape congressional maps to pack as many Democratic voters as possible into the fewest House districts. The practice is called gerrymandering, and it left fertile ground elsewhere in each state to spread Republican voters among more districts, increasing the GOP’s chances of winning more seats. Geography helped in some states. Democratic voters are more likely to live in densely populated urban areas, making it easier to pack them into fewer districts."

Here in TX, our Republican legislators gerrymandered the districts in their favor and were challenged. The US District Court wants the maps redrawn, but allowed the existing district maps to remain for the 2016 election, as there wasn't time to implement new maps. We not only have a problem with packing Democrats into single districts, but Democrat-rich areas are diluted by subdividing them into Republican-rich districts.

Twilight said...

mike (again) ~ I am being objective - but objective as a non-Democrat. Democrats always want to protect their "brand", as you are inclined to do, I keep noticing.

Yes, I do understand the concept of gerrymandering, it isn't exclusive to the USA ya know! I suspect that it has a more clear effect down-ticket positions than on the presidency though - and those effects are perhaps even more important than the presidency. But perhaps I'm not being objective. ;-)

mike (again) said...

Here's an inferred gerrymandering effect:
"A study released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center found that, over the course of 2014, American adults were far more likely to identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, by a margin of 48 to 39 percent. But in November [2014], GOP candidates for the House of Representatives garnered millions more votes than their Democratic rivals, amassing a cumulative advantage of 51 to 45 percent. A decisive Democratic edge in the general population translated to a distinct Republican advantage at the polls."
Several factors can account for this, but gerrymandering is one, by diluting the Democratic vote in each red state.

Gerrymandering is what keeps a red state red. Red states predictably elect Republican presidents. It wouldn't have mattered who the presidential candidate was for this election, your OK and my TX would and did vote Republican, as we both knew a year ago...LOL.

The demise of the Voting Rights Act has led to many Red states enacting their own voting (restriction) laws:
"Here’s a summary of the Republican voting program:
Impose voter ID requirements
Shorten early voting periods
Eliminate early voting on Sundays, when many African-American churches organize 'souls to the polls' voting drives after services
Eliminate same-day registration
Restrict the ability of citizen groups to conduct voter registration drives
Reduce the number of polling places

"'Strict photo identification laws have a differentially negative impact on the turnout of Hispanics, Blacks, and mixed-race Americans in primaries and general elections,' the UCSD study concludes. 'Voter ID laws skew democracy in favor of whites and those on the political right.'"

Twilight said...

mike (again) ~ Thanks for the links etc - am a bit late, so will read properly tomorrow.

Twilight said...

mike ~ This very good piece from Salon today, for me, tells it like it is

Identity politics vs. populist economics? It’s a false choice – liberals need to look in the mirror