|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
If it's not done by the immigrants that he's deporting, does it count as rape?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
It's a tricky situation how best to deal with foolishness from people for government creation.
On the one hand, it's bad when people feel unrepresented; on the other hand some people really don't know what they're doing at all, and can't even accurately pick things that'd be good for them, and are simply provably wrong on lots of things.
You also want to avoid systems that can too easily let hated people and demagogues in, as happened this cycle.
more innovation in government design, and use of those innovations. that's what I'd recommend.
|
On January 22 2017 02:19 mustaju wrote:If it's not done by the immigrants that he's deporting, does it count as rape? + Show Spoiler +
That reminds me of the whole "If it's a legitimate rape, the body will shut down the pregnancy without need for an abortion" statement of Todd Akin lol. So embarrassing, but is apparently a reasonable argument for some Republican leaders.
|
I'm sure the free market will step in and provide the backing for the grant funding. Or maybe charity, I can never tell which solution Republicans think works for a given societal issue.
|
On January 22 2017 02:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm sure the free market will step in and provide the backing for the grant funding. Or maybe charity, I can never tell which solution Republicans think works for a given societal issue.
Well I watched Trump's inauguration speech, so I'm pretty sure he's banking on Jesus. I was pretty surprised just how much Bible/ Jesus/ Christian God was in his speech and the speeches right after his (which were supposed to support Trump/ America). Separation of church and state my ass. It didn't just marginalize atheists; it marginalized people of any other religion too.
|
Well isn't it the Republican idea that it isn't the government who should be huge and cover that kind of thing but religious groups/charities/nonprofits? Problem with that though is that religious groups often don't do enough or their help comes with strings and charities and nonprofits are always overloaded severely because people don't behave according to plan.
But this has been a problem with US government. You get half assed measures or different things working against each other (federal v federal or state v federal) because of the two warring ideologies in the form of Dems and Repubs. Its probably better either way to let one or the other fully execute their plans and put it to the test so then the people can see how well it performs and either stick with it or vote to change. Dems had their chance at this but burned too much capital on the ACA. Should have been more patient with it so not only could you have gotten a much better version of the ACA but you wouldn't have had the backlash that led to losing so much in congress. Perhaps Obama should have waited until after that first mid term election and worked on the ACA more thoroughly with negotiations etc and just let the wave of positive vibes his early presidency had to maintain the super majority.
|
You have to dig a little deeper than whether something sounds good, like consider such things as:
1) is it the federal government's job, should it be?
2) does it work in reality, and what is the relationship between cost and benefit?
There isn't infinite money, and the government specifically doesn't have it.
|
The government doesn't have 30 million bucks to ensure the physical safety of its citizens? Sure thing.
|
On January 22 2017 03:23 Nyxisto wrote:
The government doesn't have 30 million bucks to ensure the physical safety of its citizens? Sure thing.
Not to mention the image of Donald "grab m by the pussy" Trump slashing help programs for victims of sexual assault, as one of his first acts as president. Great message to send.
|
On January 22 2017 03:23 Nyxisto wrote:
The government doesn't have 30 million bucks to ensure the physical safety of its citizens? Sure thing.
Are you referring to this?
Most recently, the office launched a "Safer Families, Safer Communities" site to enforce the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in June that states people convicted of domestic violence can't own firearms. In October, the office awarded $9.85 million in funds to investigate gender bias in policing, and in September, distributed $25 million to addressing campus sexual assault.
I can't tell where your esoteric figure came from. That's not a sum total for all the 25 grant programs, if this is what you meant. It's only money for what it says right there.
But for the sake of argument, maybe you could think of a million "worthy causes" of that fiscal size. There goes $3 trillion.
You have to actually know the cost and the benefit and use that to direct limited resources. That's why cars don't cost a million dollars and make you invincible. Not merely assume spending money works because the name sounds good. I don't know the details - but I'm not pretending to.
|
The US government blasts billions of dollars a day on god knows what, defunding these programs is obviously a political message that's completely in line with what we've heard from the GOP during the campaign. You don't need to grab the excel sheet and act like this is a specific budgetary issue.
|
On January 22 2017 03:47 Nyxisto wrote:
The US government blasts billions of dollars a day on god knows what, defunding these programs is obviously a political message that's completely in line with what we've heard from the GOP during the campaign. You don't need to grab the excel sheet and act like this is a specific budgetary issue.
You may not have opened the Hill article linked on Mic so you're misinterpreting this as the war on women - it's not, it is the budget.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/314991-trump-team-prepares-dramatic-cuts
The changes they propose are dramatic.
The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized, while the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated entirely.
Overall, the blueprint being used by Trump’s team would reduce federal spending by $10.5 trillion over 10 years.
The proposed cuts hew closely to a blueprint published last year by the conservative Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has helped staff the Trump transition.
Similar proposals have in the past won support from Republicans in the House and Senate, who believe they have an opportunity to truly tackle spending after years of warnings about the rising debt.
Many of the specific cuts were included in the 2017 budget adopted by the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), a caucus that represents a majority of House Republicans. The RSC budget plan would reduce federal spending by $8.6 trillion over the next decade.
|
Norway28917 Posts
yeah I can also agree that this is a budget thing. It's just that when people say 'slash the federal budget' we think 'oh they're gonna stop useless spending, I can get on board with that', but then in reality, slashing the federal budget entails exactly these types of measures.
I can agree that this is poor optics to have this be one of the first groups of programs to go, but mostly just to people who already hate Trump, and it's already clear that he has no interest in 'uniting the country' so why would he really give a damn. What should concern us is that a whole lot of people who fill important positions in various jobs that can never actually be monetarily profitable, but that are still very beneficial to society, will find themselves without a job, and anyone claiming that charitable organizations are gonna successfully fill the vacuum are either lying to themselves, or to us.
|
How are these two things even exclusive? You can't politically target women's programs and be a fiscal hawk at the same time?
Just look at the list of things:
t the Department of Justice, the blueprint calls for eliminating the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Violence Against Women Grants and the Legal Services Corporation and for reducing funding for its Civil Rights and its Environment and Natural Resources divisions.
At the Department of Energy, it would roll back funding for nuclear physics and advanced scientific computing research to 2008 levels, eliminate the Office of Electricity, eliminate the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and scrap the Office of Fossil Energy, which focuses on technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Under the State Department’s jurisdiction, funding for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Paris Climate Change Agreement and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are candidates for elimination.
|
are there any budget cuts that matter proposed yet? i.e. that involve large enough numbers to be truly relevant to fixing debt/deficit issues?
|
On January 22 2017 05:35 zlefin wrote:
are there any budget cuts that matter proposed yet? i.e. that involve large enough numbers to be truly relevant to fixing debt/deficit issues?
I think you should give them more then a day.
|
On January 22 2017 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 05:35 zlefin wrote:
are there any budget cuts that matter proposed yet? i.e. that involve large enough numbers to be truly relevant to fixing debt/deficit issues? I think you should give them more then a day.
eh; people were talking about them, so it made sense to ask if any relevant ones were proposed.
i'ts not that i'm not giving them time. it's that I want to know if there's any ones serious enoguh to be worth looking at or thinking about.
|
On January 22 2017 05:35 zlefin wrote:
are there any budget cuts that matter proposed yet? i.e. that involve large enough numbers to be truly relevant to fixing debt/deficit issues?
How close is a proposed reduction in spending by $10.5 trillion over 10 years to mattering? What exactly are you searching for here?
|
On January 22 2017 05:47 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 05:35 zlefin wrote:
are there any budget cuts that matter proposed yet? i.e. that involve large enough numbers to be truly relevant to fixing debt/deficit issues? How close is a proposed reduction in spending by $10.5 trillion over 10 years to mattering? What exactly are you searching for here?
that's plenty big enough to count. where's the specs on it?
|
In Mexico it is known as “el efecto Trump”: a barrage of taunts and tweets that rattle the economy and hammer the peso.
For the president, it is part of a strategy to pressure companies to move jobs back to the United States. Mexico’s job will be to suck it up, accept the millions of people Trump has promised to deport, and pay for the proposed border wall.
Reality may soon mug this vision because Donald Trump, in one of the first great ironies of his presidency, has given impoverished Mexicans more reason to migrate to the US.
The peso’s slump against the dollar has dramatically driven up their cost of living, fuelling angry protests and steeling the resolve of some to sneak across the border.
“You’re going to see a lot more people from the south coming up here to cross,” said Paulino Hernández, 38, seated in a Catholic-run migrant shelter in Tijuana, on the border with California. “People are feeling bad. Everything has become so expensive. The dollar now goes a lot further.”
Hernández, a construction worker who has lived illegally in San Diego since 2000, recently visited relatives in Oaxaca, in southern Mexico, and found young people clamouring to join him on his trip back to the US. “They want to go north.”
It is an ironic twist on the fact Trump stormed to the White House on vows to end an “invasion” of “illegals”, deport millions of undocumented immigrants, and seal the border.
The numbers trekking north had dwindled over the past decade as Mexico’s economy improved, and the US’s struggled, but the mood now is bleak, and dreams of life in the US glow anew, Hernández said. “My nephew begged to come with me. He doesn’t see a future in Mexico.”
Mexico’s former president Felipe Calderón tweeted a warning to America’s new president: “The more jobs you destroy in Mexico, the more immigrants the American people will have. Think a little!”
Gordon Hanson, a UC San Diego economics professor who studies migration trends, said Trump had reversed the macro-economic climate and created uncertainty about Mexico’s future. “Greater instability could induce younger workers … to start their careers in the US. It does ironically increase the incentive to move north. Everything we’re seeing now is the Trump effect.”
Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton jolted an economy left vulnerable by anaemic growth and faltering reforms. The peso swooned from 18 to the dollar to 20 in the election’s immediate aftermath and slid again to 22 in recent days as Trump ratcheted up pressure.
He threw Mexico’s automobile industry – a sizable employer – into disarray by threatening Ford, Toyota, General Motors and other manufacturers with tariffs unless they ship jobs to the US. Ford denied any connection but announced the cancellation of a planned $1.6bn plant in Villa de Reyes, saying it would instead expand a facility in Michigan. Trump greeted the move as “just the beginning”.
The president has also threatened to renegotiate trade terms, which sustain thousands of factories known as maquiladoras along Mexico’s border. And to swipe remittances, immigrants in the US send to relatives in Mexico – a multibillion-dollar lifeline – to fund the wall.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
