|
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. |
On March 17 2017 04:38 Danglars wrote:
Trump's 2018 budget reduces discretionary budget authority by a whopping...$13.6 billion, or 1.2%. (Compared to 2017 appropriations)
Since I saw them described as massive and Kristof of the NYT drew comparisons to the dark ages. He's not going to drain the swamp and he's going to end up raising entitlements and spending without a doubt, calm yourselves.
Er, no, actually there's going to be huge cuts to the HUD, Interior, HHS, and Transportation.
It probably won't pass as-is, but the proposal would be a complete disaster.
|
On March 17 2017 04:22 LightSpectra wrote:
I really hope something becomes of this scandal beyond "Trump advisor resigns, approval rates remain stable."
I mean... a fucking Nazi. Seriously. Unintentionally (or not?) putting a Nazi on your advisory team isn't an "oops, teehee, my bad", that's grounds for dismissal. The only comparable example I can think of is Willy Brandt, former Chancellor of West Germany, resigning because one of his aides was a member of the Stasi.
Back in the times when politicians had the balls to take responsibility, rather than pointing wildly in the air blaming fake news etc or simply ignoring mistakes being made.
|
On March 17 2017 04:38 Danglars wrote:
Trump's 2018 budget reduces discretionary budget authority by a whopping...$13.6 billion, or 1.2%. (Compared to 2017 appropriations)
Since I saw them described as massive and Kristof of the NYT drew comparisons to the dark ages. He's not going to drain the swamp and he's going to end up raising entitlements and spending without a doubt, calm yourselves.
I don't think people are worried about the spending (other than conservatives) they're worried about what he's spending (and not spending) it on.
Trump's a conman, that's his MO, I give it about 6 months until most conservatives (here) openly admit Trump conned them and the Republicans.
|
Man.. Spicer is hard to listen to. His trying to justify Trump's wiretapping claim is one of the most pathetic things i think ive ever heard.
Also, Mulvaney said the new budget is super compassionate because it doesn't spend money on bad things. Just wow.
|
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul escalated an already-tense war of words with Arizona Sen. John McCain Thursday morning, by suggesting that it's time for McCain to leave the Senate.
McCain on Wednesday accused Paul of working for Russian President Vladimir Putin because he blocked a treaty that would allow Montenegro to join NATO. Paul dismissed that and fired back at McCain on MSNBC.
"You know, I think he makes a really, really strong case … for term limits," Paul said. "I think maybe he's past his prime. I think maybe he's gotten a little unhinged." Washington Examiner
|
On March 17 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 04:38 Danglars wrote:
Trump's 2018 budget reduces discretionary budget authority by a whopping...$13.6 billion, or 1.2%. (Compared to 2017 appropriations)
Since I saw them described as massive and Kristof of the NYT drew comparisons to the dark ages. He's not going to drain the swamp and he's going to end up raising entitlements and spending without a doubt, calm yourselves. I don't think people are worried about the spending (other than conservatives) they're worried about what he's spending (and not spending) it on. Trump's a conman, that's his MO, I give it about 6 months until most conservatives (here) openly admit Trump conned them and the Republicans.
If that's the case I only give it 6 months and 1 day before the DNC openly says the american people are clearly begging for Hillary to be put into power instead.
|
On March 17 2017 04:45 On_Slaught wrote:
Man.. Spicer is hard to listen to. His trying to justify Trump's wiretapping claim is one of the most pathetic things i think ive ever heard.
Also, Mulvaney said the new budget is super compassionate because it doesn't spend money on bad things. Just wow.
i believe that's called 'fiscal conservatism'.
. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prisons..."
"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir..."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
|
On March 17 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 04:38 Danglars wrote:
Trump's 2018 budget reduces discretionary budget authority by a whopping...$13.6 billion, or 1.2%. (Compared to 2017 appropriations)
Since I saw them described as massive and Kristof of the NYT drew comparisons to the dark ages. He's not going to drain the swamp and he's going to end up raising entitlements and spending without a doubt, calm yourselves. I don't think people are worried about the spending (other than conservatives) they're worried about what he's spending (and not spending) it on. Trump's a conman, that's his MO, I give it about 6 months until most conservatives (here) openly admit Trump conned them and the Republicans.
Ordinary people, maybe not, media figures, certainly they've blown it out of proportion. Just from watching the news and reading NYT and WaPo. This thread, thankfully a little less so ... exception for the recurring Nazi threat mentions.
|
On March 17 2017 04:53 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2017 04:38 Danglars wrote:
Trump's 2018 budget reduces discretionary budget authority by a whopping...$13.6 billion, or 1.2%. (Compared to 2017 appropriations)
Since I saw them described as massive and Kristof of the NYT drew comparisons to the dark ages. He's not going to drain the swamp and he's going to end up raising entitlements and spending without a doubt, calm yourselves. I don't think people are worried about the spending (other than conservatives) they're worried about what he's spending (and not spending) it on. Trump's a conman, that's his MO, I give it about 6 months until most conservatives (here) openly admit Trump conned them and the Republicans. If that's the case I only give it 6 months and 1 day before the DNC openly says the american people are clearly begging for Hillary to be put into power instead.
But as we know, when politicians run for things their favorables go down, so the Democrats are going to have fun explaining why they should run someone with already negative favorables instead of the most popular politician in the country.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 17 2017 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 04:53 Nevuk wrote:On March 17 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2017 04:38 Danglars wrote:
Trump's 2018 budget reduces discretionary budget authority by a whopping...$13.6 billion, or 1.2%. (Compared to 2017 appropriations)
Since I saw them described as massive and Kristof of the NYT drew comparisons to the dark ages. He's not going to drain the swamp and he's going to end up raising entitlements and spending without a doubt, calm yourselves. I don't think people are worried about the spending (other than conservatives) they're worried about what he's spending (and not spending) it on. Trump's a conman, that's his MO, I give it about 6 months until most conservatives (here) openly admit Trump conned them and the Republicans. If that's the case I only give it 6 months and 1 day before the DNC openly says the american people are clearly begging for Hillary to be put into power instead. But as we know, when politicians run for things their favorables go down, so the Democrats are going to have fun explaining why they should run someone with already negative favorables instead of the most popular politician in the country.
Ideally they would have a bench that has enough people on it that are palatable both to the party and the progressive sandernista distractions. Obama was at least acceptably good for that. But the more people are reminded of how doubleplusungood the party apparatus is, the more disgusting voting for their golden child will be. And I worry that we're going to have to play a game of "how disgusting a candidate can we push forward before people vote for the Trumplings instead?"
|
Does he expect high ROI? How would it under-perform? What did he expect it to do?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Trump's budget: America First
Graph by agency:
+ Show Spoiler +
Defense, Homeland Security, Veteran affairs get a boost. Everyone else gets moderately to severely slaughtered.
|
I assume he's just being obnoxious; but one could measuer things like meals/cost, factoring in the quality of the meals. and try to account for the other value gained by checking up on people, perhaps by measuring how often something useful is found.
|
On March 17 2017 06:10 zlefin wrote:I assume he's just being obnoxious; but one could measuer things like meals/cost, factoring in the quality of the meals. and try to account for the other value gained by checking up on people, perhaps by measuring how often something useful is found.
Or he is deeply stupid and doesn’t understand that the service exist to feed old people who can’t feed themselves and have no family. I like my version because it makes more sense.
|
I'll give trump credit for atleast trying to balance the spending, and relatively most of it follows from his campaign promises. What about the inner cities though? I'd have expected hud to have gotten a boost. Still not touching entitlements though.
|
On March 17 2017 06:38 biology]major wrote:
I'll give trump credit for atleast trying to balance the spending, and relatively most of it follows from his campaign promises. What about the inner cities though? I'd have expected hud to have gotten a boost. Still not touching entitlements though.
Yea, if the house is burning at least heating costs won't be as high.
Reducing education, housing and EPA budget is like a breath of fresh air on the smoldering fire
|
No one want to touch entitlements. They just like bitching about them, but then go back to their states that benefit from them heavily. And all of those cuts are pretty terrible in general. Especially the State Department's foreign aid. That provides the most bang for our buck keeping US citizens safe abroad and provides us with leverage in nations we normally wouldn't have.
Who needs federal aid for poor schools in poor communities?
Or health services for poor communities in poor states?
Or clean air water not that fracking in on the rise?
But we totally need to off set that with more defense spending.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
What strikes me, but isn't really surprising, is the double standards on "waste." The programs he campaigned against apparently have all this ridiculous waste, whereas the DoD is just insanely underfunded and is on a shoestring.
|
On March 17 2017 06:38 biology]major wrote:
I'll give trump credit for atleast trying to balance the spending, and relatively most of it follows from his campaign promises. What about the inner cities though? I'd have expected hud to have gotten a boost. Still not touching entitlements though.
I do'nt think this counts at all as trying to balance the spending.
if you don't reduce the military or do something about entitlements you're not actually trying to balance anything.
and it looks like the kind of idiocy that ignores the long term costs of skimping on important background and maintenance work.
and I don't see this actually reducing the debt at all, there shoudl still be a sizeable deficit with these numbers.
|
On March 17 2017 06:46 LegalLord wrote:
What strikes me, but isn't really surprising, is the double standards on "waste." The programs he campaigned against apparently have all this ridiculous waste, whereas the DoD is just insanely underfunded and is on a shoestring.
The armed services is a department that is so large it has its own media wing that runs ads during the super bowl. Makes deals with the NFL to prevent protests of the military by players and staff. Makes video games. One might call this propaganda, but that means you wouldn't support our troops.
If HUD started spending money to champion the merits of HUD to the US people at a level that even vaguely resembled what the DoD does, Republicans shut down the goverment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sFFq7gP.png)
