|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Canada11279 Posts
. If you read Mein Kampf (to be fair, I have not, so if I'm completely wrong about this then feel free to correct me)
I've read the beginning of Mein Kampf but stopped as things got busy. I'd say, he pretty much said exactly what he was going to do in that book (unite Greater Germany, Jews and Marxists are the problem, etc). Now, if you go back to The Doctrine of Fascism by Mussolini, you could perhaps make a similar case- that the fascism in theory had no hint of genocide. (If Mussolini is to Marx as Hitler is to Stalin- theory vs implementation.) On the other hand, Doctrine of Fascism is really big on the nobility of struggle (while rejecting class struggle), and then again Marx is all about class struggle, so I suppose you could justification for violence in either if you were looking for them.
|
Northern Ireland22207 Posts
On September 11 2018 07:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Why would that be under the purview of the ICC? Also the nation would be UK, not England.
to the Cousins, the term Britain, England and UK are interchangeable
|
The whole debate over market socialism vs 'Venezuelan style' socialism vs whatever is far too focused on use of language lol. Modern proponents of market socialism are ideological Keynesians with updated economic policies for globalised, post-industrial countries. Socialism as it's used is as much an indicator by whoever is using it that they're broadly opposed to neoliberalism, and probably hold certain principles that inform their political positions. Keynes described himself as a Bolshevik occasionally, which shows the relative meaningless of self-ascribed ideological labels.
|
I'm not sure I've ever hear the term "keynesians" to mean anything except those who advocate for government action to stabilize aggregate demand during booms and busts, so I don't quite get your equivalence.
|
Keynesianism and its correlates are fairly well defined, so I don't see where the confusion comes from. The term has far fewer connotative tugs of war than other economic terms at least.
|
I've always thought it was well defined as well. Heck, the wikipedia entry to keynesianism is almost exclusively about macroeconomic theories about short run stabilization of aggregate demand. It says remarkably little on many many things that market socialist care about, from market regulation to free government services to income/wealth redistribution.
Sure, the people who advocate for government policies to stabilize aggregate demand (beyond setting interest rates) are the same that advocate for these other things, but that doesn't mean these other things are "ideologically keynesian" in nature.
|
Reminder of the character of the man who Republicans put in the White House. The OP ed writer said he is amoral, with no guiding principle, no direction other than his own gratification. Thank God we lucked out and have high level resisters in administration who are negating the destructive potential of this aspect of trumps personality.
|
That op-ed is a shining example of the feckless conservative that wants political victories, but doesn’t want any of the consequences for those political victories. They want massive tax cuts and reduction of entitlements, but don’t want to be told that those cuts are hurting the poor people who rely on them. They want the conservative court, but don’t want to be seen as responsible if the federal government’s ability to regulate industries is gutted by that court.
They want to be seen as Americans who serve their country by limiting the negative influences of Trump, while also benefiting from Trump’s time in the White House. They fear Trumps impact on the country, but not enough to stop him or join the people opposing his administration. Not even enough to sign their name. The end of the op-ed is the crown, where they say we should all come together as Americans after they get everything they want out of this abusive administration.
I said it before, but Steven Miller signs his name to his racist bullshit. At least he has the courage of his shitty convictions. The NYT clown isn’t even that.
|
I will maintain that, because of the things Plansix describes, that the op-ed which alleges resistance to Trump is, more than anything, meant to fan the flames for Trump and his base. What better way to stoke up the voters than to have someone write about allegedly resisting Trump and his agenda from within (Deep State), while also conveniently enjoying the things Trump is trying to bring about. Shit, for all we know Trump probably coordinated with this person, because right after it came out he was at another one of those rallies he loves having, stoking the flames of his base personally. All over an article that allegedly "resists" but then points out nothing of substantive resistance. They metaphorically set up a strawman so they could knock it down.
|
On September 12 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
That op-ed is a shining example of the feckless conservative that wants political victories, but doesn’t want any of the consequences for those political victories. They want massive tax cuts and reduction of entitlements, but don’t want to be told that those cuts are hurting the poor people who rely on them. They want the conservative court, but don’t want to be seen as responsible if the federal government’s ability to regulate industries is gutted by that court.
They want to be seen as Americans who serve their country by limiting the negative influences of Trump, while also benefiting from Trump’s time in the White House. They fear Trumps impact on the country, but not enough to stop him or join the people opposing his administration. Not even enough to sign their name. The end of the op-ed is the crown, where they say we should all come together as Americans after they get everything they want out of this abusive administration.
I said it before, but Steven Miller signs his name to his racist bullshit. At least he has the courage of his shitty convictions. The NYT clown isn’t even that.
You're completely right. It's also someone who is trying to whitewash his party from Trump. They know they're most likely going to get slaughtered in the election and they've probably gotten all the mileage they're going to get from the president. Now it's time to try and distance yourself. Who? Me? What? NO! We're the party of uhh family values and stuff again. Ignore the fact that this lunatic represents all of us. They want a way to separate the party from him down the road. On top of all that it's also horrifyingly undemocratic. Random anonymous unelected people behind the scenes trying to steer the ship is a little bit fucked up.
|
On September 12 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
That op-ed is a shining example of the feckless conservative that wants political victories, but doesn’t want any of the consequences for those political victories. They want massive tax cuts and reduction of entitlements, but don’t want to be told that those cuts are hurting the poor people who rely on them. They want the conservative court, but don’t want to be seen as responsible if the federal government’s ability to regulate industries is gutted by that court.
They want to be seen as Americans who serve their country by limiting the negative influences of Trump, while also benefiting from Trump’s time in the White House. They fear Trumps impact on the country, but not enough to stop him or join the people opposing his administration. Not even enough to sign their name. The end of the op-ed is the crown, where they say we should all come together as Americans after they get everything they want out of this abusive administration.
I said it before, but Steven Miller signs his name to his racist bullshit. At least he has the courage of his shitty convictions. The NYT clown isn’t even that.
Yes, and liberals should be supporting Trump for his protection of entitlements (probably expansion), but they're too busy de-legitimizing his presidency and pursuing anti-democratic routes for taking him down (or making him impotent) before 2020. So there's that.
Conservatives always get vilified over cuts. It's the same emotional appeal throughout the decades, some strains going back to Goldwater Era, others even farther. The fact remains that the government spends more than it takes in, and past government welfare programs are unsustainable, as said by the very same agencies running them for ages. Yet, any attempts at reform of funding for the sake of actually having money to spend on the elderly and poor is met by the same brainless emotional appeals that like throwing money at problems and raising taxes and everyone to pay for the endeavor.
The same fear-mongering applies to the court. A blend of textualism and originalism are the fundamentally right way to interpret the constitution and passed laws. But this stands in the way of a political ideology that wants laws to mean whatever aligned agencies think it should mean, and wants courts to put their stamp on whatever bending of laws is required. The hysteria surrounding a couple justices that think the legislature writes the laws, not the judiciary, is proof positive that America has really strayed from a nation of laws and plenty of people embrace the new lawlessness.
Finally, these debates go badly for liberals in America. But please, do not fear. You can always call people that think differently than you on immigration racists. You can examine speeches and find code-words to show you're making racist signalling. You can call an America-first domestic policy racist and xenophobic. If you ask me you're kinda overreaching from nations looking out first for their own citizens, but secondly for their interests in a peaceful international order. Call your opponents possessed of hatred, it's worked in the past, after all. Get a growing margin of Americans pissed off at getting slandered when they want to fix a broken immigration system, a broken welfare system, or broken foreign policy. Surely, there will be a nice, peaceful conflict where those that called everyone racists and those tired of getting the slurs come together, shake hands, and walk away peacefully! There's no chance for some bombastic fool to use the issue, take it 100 yards past a useful correction, and fling it in your face for four years? Right?
Trump was the better candidate in the 2016 election and he won, fair and square. We're now having dialogues on issues that were previously too buried in race-baiting to be given an airing, even though a fringe still does the islamophobic-homophobic-racist verbal tap dance. You, Plansix, want to own the take that people like me are going to run from "any of the consequences for those political victories." They're political fallout from a far worse problem and acceptable given the extent that the country suffered leading up to Trump. I also love my country and want to see more comity post-2020. I also see injustices that Trump doesn't care about and Congressional Republicans ignore. Maybe some of them we can come together on, who knows?
|
On September 12 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
That op-ed is a shining example of the feckless conservative that wants political victories, but doesn’t want any of the consequences for those political victories. They want massive tax cuts and reduction of entitlements, but don’t want to be told that those cuts are hurting the poor people who rely on them. They want the conservative court, but don’t want to be seen as responsible if the federal government’s ability to regulate industries is gutted by that court.
They want to be seen as Americans who serve their country by limiting the negative influences of Trump, while also benefiting from Trump’s time in the White House. They fear Trumps impact on the country, but not enough to stop him or join the people opposing his administration. Not even enough to sign their name. The end of the op-ed is the crown, where they say we should all come together as Americans after they get everything they want out of this abusive administration.
I said it before, but Steven Miller signs his name to his racist bullshit. At least he has the courage of his shitty convictions. The NYT clown isn’t even that.
Strictly from the standpoint of checking trumps amorality and adolescent impulses, we lucked out by having people resisting that from within the administration. If they weren't willing to do that, the child that's in the white house could do real damage. Apart from the policies they're implementing, these people are protecting us in one area at least.
|
On September 12 2018 03:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
That op-ed is a shining example of the feckless conservative that wants political victories, but doesn’t want any of the consequences for those political victories. They want massive tax cuts and reduction of entitlements, but don’t want to be told that those cuts are hurting the poor people who rely on them. They want the conservative court, but don’t want to be seen as responsible if the federal government’s ability to regulate industries is gutted by that court.
They want to be seen as Americans who serve their country by limiting the negative influences of Trump, while also benefiting from Trump’s time in the White House. They fear Trumps impact on the country, but not enough to stop him or join the people opposing his administration. Not even enough to sign their name. The end of the op-ed is the crown, where they say we should all come together as Americans after they get everything they want out of this abusive administration.
I said it before, but Steven Miller signs his name to his racist bullshit. At least he has the courage of his shitty convictions. The NYT clown isn’t even that. Yes, and liberals should be supporting Trump for his protection of entitlements (probably expansion), but they're too busy de-legitimizing his presidency and pursuing anti-democratic routes for taking him down (or making him impotent) before 2020. So there's that. Conservatives always get vilified over cuts. It's the same emotional appeal throughout the decades, some strains going back to Goldwater Era, others even farther. The fact remains that the government spends more than it takes in, and past government welfare programs are unsustainable, as said by the very same agencies running them for ages. Yet, any attempts at reform of funding for the sake of actually having money to spend on the elderly and poor is met by the same brainless emotional appeals that like throwing money at problems and raising taxes and everyone to pay for the endeavor.
What major cuts are you talking about?
2019 suggested budget: $4,407 trillion
2018 budget: Total expenditures $4.094 trillion (requested)
2017 budget: Total expenditures $4.147 trillion (requested)
$3.982 trillion (actual)
2016 budget: Total expenditures $3.999 trillion (requested)
$3.853 trillion (actual)
He asked for money than was spent in the year before for 2018, increasing as normal for 2019. That doesn't scream cuts to me. To me it just looks like he moved money to projects he likes more from ones he doesn't like than anything else and phrasing that as cuts.
I think you would find the other side happy if he increased military spending by 0 last year to make cuts adjusted to inflation.
2019 budget says this:
The Budget requests $686 billion for DOD, an $80 billion or 13-percent increase from the 2017 enacted
level. This includes $597 billion for the base budget, and $89 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations.
This is why people don't even believe he is cutting, he is just moving money from departments he doesn't like to the military. If he cut it 10% and used that to finance the status quo there would be different people complaining.
Then for pennies you have DHS that could use a cut instead of increase as well.
The Budget requests $46 billion in discretionary appropriations for DHS, a $3.4 billion or 8-percent increase
from the 2017 enacted level (excluding updated 2017 receipts). In addition, $6.7 billion is available to help
communities overwhelmed by major disasters.
•
Critical investments include $1.6 billion for construction of the border wall and $782 million to hire and
support 2,750 additional law enforcement officers and agents at U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Budget also requests $2.5 billion for
detaining up to 47,000 illegal aliens on a daily basis.
|
On September 11 2018 22:47 Sbrubbles wrote:I've always thought it was well defined as well. Heck, the wikipedia entry to keynesianism is almost exclusively about macroeconomic theories about short run stabilization of aggregate demand. It says remarkably little on many many things that market socialist care about, from market regulation to free government services to income/wealth redistribution. Sure, the people who advocate for government policies to stabilize aggregate demand (beyond setting interest rates) are the same that advocate for these other things, but that doesn't mean these other things are "ideologically keynesian" in nature.
The other things are ideologically Keynesian in nature because Keynes was, ideologically, essentially an arch pragmatist attempting to reconcile the separate demands and constraints of capitalism and democracy (as opposed to neoliberalism, which quite blatantly sacrifices democracy as soon as it appears to threaten the function of the free market). I understand that self-described socialists stress the necessity of radicalism in their conclusions, which they come to for ethical reasons as well as pragmatic ones - I'd describe myself as socialist for that reason - but I don't think people that describe themselves as market socialists are trying to actually effect a great deal more than a Keynesian would try to affect. Market socialists quite rightly adopt the language of justice in pursuit of their political goals, which is where they primarily differ from Keynesian liberalism, but the latter ideology isn't unconcerned with justice so much as keeping the ship steady through present crises so that fatalism regarding a just future doesn't distract from potentially enormously destructive present crises. When I look at the socialist movements on the rise in the west - especially Sanders and Corbyn - I see the pragmatism of Keynes just as prominently as any other influence.
|
On September 12 2018 03:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
That op-ed is a shining example of the feckless conservative that wants political victories, but doesn’t want any of the consequences for those political victories. They want massive tax cuts and reduction of entitlements, but don’t want to be told that those cuts are hurting the poor people who rely on them. They want the conservative court, but don’t want to be seen as responsible if the federal government’s ability to regulate industries is gutted by that court.
They want to be seen as Americans who serve their country by limiting the negative influences of Trump, while also benefiting from Trump’s time in the White House. They fear Trumps impact on the country, but not enough to stop him or join the people opposing his administration. Not even enough to sign their name. The end of the op-ed is the crown, where they say we should all come together as Americans after they get everything they want out of this abusive administration.
I said it before, but Steven Miller signs his name to his racist bullshit. At least he has the courage of his shitty convictions. The NYT clown isn’t even that. Yes, and liberals should be supporting Trump for his protection of entitlements (probably expansion), but they're too busy de-legitimizing his presidency and pursuing anti-democratic routes for taking him down (or making him impotent) before 2020. So there's that. Conservatives always get vilified over cuts. It's the same emotional appeal throughout the decades, some strains going back to Goldwater Era, others even farther. The fact remains that the government spends more than it takes in, and past government welfare programs are unsustainable, as said by the very same agencies running them for ages. Yet, any attempts at reform of funding for the sake of actually having money to spend on the elderly and poor is met by the same brainless emotional appeals that like throwing money at problems and raising taxes and everyone to pay for the endeavor. The same fear-mongering applies to the court. A blend of textualism and originalism are the fundamentally right way to interpret the constitution and passed laws. But this stands in the way of a political ideology that wants laws to mean whatever aligned agencies think it should mean, and wants courts to put their stamp on whatever bending of laws is required. The hysteria surrounding a couple justices that think the legislature writes the laws, not the judiciary, is proof positive that America has really strayed from a nation of laws and plenty of people embrace the new lawlessness. Finally, these debates go badly for liberals in America. But please, do not fear. You can always call people that think differently than you on immigration racists. You can examine speeches and find code-words to show you're making racist signalling. You can call an America-first domestic policy racist and xenophobic. If you ask me you're kinda overreaching from nations looking out first for their own citizens, but secondly for their interests in a peaceful international order. Call your opponents possessed of hatred, it's worked in the past, after all. Get a growing margin of Americans pissed off at getting slandered when they want to fix a broken immigration system, a broken welfare system, or broken foreign policy. Surely, there will be a nice, peaceful conflict where those that called everyone racists and those tired of getting the slurs come together, shake hands, and walk away peacefully! There's no chance for some bombastic fool to use the issue, take it 100 yards past a useful correction, and fling it in your face for four years? Right? Trump was the better candidate in the 2016 election and he won, fair and square. We're now having dialogues on issues that were previously too buried in race-baiting to be given an airing, even though a fringe still does the islamophobic-homophobic-racist verbal tap dance. You, Plansix, want to own the take that people like me are going to run from "any of the consequences for those political victories." They're political fallout from a far worse problem and acceptable given the extent that the country suffered leading up to Trump. I also love my country and want to see more comity post-2020. I also see injustices that Trump doesn't care about and Congressional Republicans ignore. Maybe some of them we can come together on, who knows?
Danglars, I love your long winded explanation that everyone(including me, because I do say all those things) hysterical and your political viewpoints are the right ones. So have faith in your fellow Americans and that their political views have good intentions. That the political polarization can end so long as you get what you want. It emblematic of the op-ed, but you have the courage to sign your name to it.
I fundamentally disagree with that assessment. I no longer trust conservatives at large as good faith actors. The actions of the conservative controlled government preclude that. Conservatives are coming to take away the protections that assure my wife’s healthcare, make it hard for my friends to obtain citizenship and ban my friends from using the bathrooms they feel safe using. That much has become clear in the last couple of years.
Even your arguments that liberals are being hysterical hold no water. The liberals are simply pointing out the end goals of conservative groups in frank terms without the venire of good faith.
|
On September 12 2018 03:15 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
That op-ed is a shining example of the feckless conservative that wants political victories, but doesn’t want any of the consequences for those political victories. They want massive tax cuts and reduction of entitlements, but don’t want to be told that those cuts are hurting the poor people who rely on them. They want the conservative court, but don’t want to be seen as responsible if the federal government’s ability to regulate industries is gutted by that court.
They want to be seen as Americans who serve their country by limiting the negative influences of Trump, while also benefiting from Trump’s time in the White House. They fear Trumps impact on the country, but not enough to stop him or join the people opposing his administration. Not even enough to sign their name. The end of the op-ed is the crown, where they say we should all come together as Americans after they get everything they want out of this abusive administration.
I said it before, but Steven Miller signs his name to his racist bullshit. At least he has the courage of his shitty convictions. The NYT clown isn’t even that. Strictly from the standpoint of checking trumps amorality and adolescent impulses, we lucked out by having people resisting that from within the administration. If they weren't willing to do that, the child that's in the white house could do real damage. Apart from the policies they're implementing, these people are protecting us in one area at least.
My guy, we are locking children up and putting them on display at the border. The damage is being done, just not to anyone with political power(voters). These people in the administration stopping Trump are just avoiding him doing something that would get them all removed from power, nothing more.
|
On September 12 2018 03:23 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 03:03 Danglars wrote:On September 12 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
That op-ed is a shining example of the feckless conservative that wants political victories, but doesn’t want any of the consequences for those political victories. They want massive tax cuts and reduction of entitlements, but don’t want to be told that those cuts are hurting the poor people who rely on them. They want the conservative court, but don’t want to be seen as responsible if the federal government’s ability to regulate industries is gutted by that court.
They want to be seen as Americans who serve their country by limiting the negative influences of Trump, while also benefiting from Trump’s time in the White House. They fear Trumps impact on the country, but not enough to stop him or join the people opposing his administration. Not even enough to sign their name. The end of the op-ed is the crown, where they say we should all come together as Americans after they get everything they want out of this abusive administration.
I said it before, but Steven Miller signs his name to his racist bullshit. At least he has the courage of his shitty convictions. The NYT clown isn’t even that. Yes, and liberals should be supporting Trump for his protection of entitlements (probably expansion), but they're too busy de-legitimizing his presidency and pursuing anti-democratic routes for taking him down (or making him impotent) before 2020. So there's that. Conservatives always get vilified over cuts. It's the same emotional appeal throughout the decades, some strains going back to Goldwater Era, others even farther. The fact remains that the government spends more than it takes in, and past government welfare programs are unsustainable, as said by the very same agencies running them for ages. Yet, any attempts at reform of funding for the sake of actually having money to spend on the elderly and poor is met by the same brainless emotional appeals that like throwing money at problems and raising taxes and everyone to pay for the endeavor. What major cuts are you talking about? 2019 suggested budget: $4,407 trillion 2018 budget: Total expenditures $4.094 trillion (requested) 2017 budget: Total expenditures $4.147 trillion (requested) $3.982 trillion (actual) 2016 budget: Total expenditures $3.999 trillion (requested) $3.853 trillion (actual) He asked for money than was spent in the year before for 2018, increasing as normal for 2019. That doesn't scream cuts to me. To me it just looks like he moved money to projects he likes more from ones he doesn't like than anything else and phrasing that as cuts. I think you would find the other side happy if he increased military spending by 0 last year to make cuts adjusted to inflation. 2019 budget says this: The Budget requests $686 billion for DOD, an $80 billion or 13-percent increase from the 2017 enacted level. This includes $597 billion for the base budget, and $89 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations. This is why people don't even believe he is cutting, he is just moving money from departments he doesn't like to the military. If he cut it 10% and used that to finance the status quo there would be different people complaining. Then for pennies you have DHS that could use a cut instead of increase as well. The Budget requests $46 billion in discretionary appropriations for DHS, a $3.4 billion or 8-percent increase from the 2017 enacted level (excluding updated 2017 receipts). In addition, $6.7 billion is available to help communities overwhelmed by major disasters. • Critical investments include $1.6 billion for construction of the border wall and $782 million to hire and support 2,750 additional law enforcement officers and agents at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Budget also requests $2.5 billion for detaining up to 47,000 illegal aliens on a daily basis.
What part of "liberals should be supporting Trump for his protection of entitlements" do you not understand?
Who are you quoting about "major cuts [you are] talking about?"
|
On September 12 2018 04:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 03:23 Yurie wrote:On September 12 2018 03:03 Danglars wrote:On September 12 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
That op-ed is a shining example of the feckless conservative that wants political victories, but doesn’t want any of the consequences for those political victories. They want massive tax cuts and reduction of entitlements, but don’t want to be told that those cuts are hurting the poor people who rely on them. They want the conservative court, but don’t want to be seen as responsible if the federal government’s ability to regulate industries is gutted by that court.
They want to be seen as Americans who serve their country by limiting the negative influences of Trump, while also benefiting from Trump’s time in the White House. They fear Trumps impact on the country, but not enough to stop him or join the people opposing his administration. Not even enough to sign their name. The end of the op-ed is the crown, where they say we should all come together as Americans after they get everything they want out of this abusive administration.
I said it before, but Steven Miller signs his name to his racist bullshit. At least he has the courage of his shitty convictions. The NYT clown isn’t even that. Yes, and liberals should be supporting Trump for his protection of entitlements (probably expansion), but they're too busy de-legitimizing his presidency and pursuing anti-democratic routes for taking him down (or making him impotent) before 2020. So there's that. Conservatives always get vilified over cuts. It's the same emotional appeal throughout the decades, some strains going back to Goldwater Era, others even farther. The fact remains that the government spends more than it takes in, and past government welfare programs are unsustainable, as said by the very same agencies running them for ages. Yet, any attempts at reform of funding for the sake of actually having money to spend on the elderly and poor is met by the same brainless emotional appeals that like throwing money at problems and raising taxes and everyone to pay for the endeavor. What major cuts are you talking about? 2019 suggested budget: $4,407 trillion 2018 budget: Total expenditures $4.094 trillion (requested) 2017 budget: Total expenditures $4.147 trillion (requested) $3.982 trillion (actual) 2016 budget: Total expenditures $3.999 trillion (requested) $3.853 trillion (actual) He asked for money than was spent in the year before for 2018, increasing as normal for 2019. That doesn't scream cuts to me. To me it just looks like he moved money to projects he likes more from ones he doesn't like than anything else and phrasing that as cuts. I think you would find the other side happy if he increased military spending by 0 last year to make cuts adjusted to inflation. 2019 budget says this: The Budget requests $686 billion for DOD, an $80 billion or 13-percent increase from the 2017 enacted level. This includes $597 billion for the base budget, and $89 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations. This is why people don't even believe he is cutting, he is just moving money from departments he doesn't like to the military. If he cut it 10% and used that to finance the status quo there would be different people complaining. Then for pennies you have DHS that could use a cut instead of increase as well. The Budget requests $46 billion in discretionary appropriations for DHS, a $3.4 billion or 8-percent increase from the 2017 enacted level (excluding updated 2017 receipts). In addition, $6.7 billion is available to help communities overwhelmed by major disasters. • Critical investments include $1.6 billion for construction of the border wall and $782 million to hire and support 2,750 additional law enforcement officers and agents at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Budget also requests $2.5 billion for detaining up to 47,000 illegal aliens on a daily basis. What part of "liberals should be supporting Trump for his protection of entitlements" do you not understand? Who are you quoting about "major cuts [you are] talking about?"
What fictional protection of entitlements? The White House has backed several efforts to puts restrictions on entitlements that would prevent people from obtaining them, including a job requirement Medicaid that was blocked by the court.
|
On September 12 2018 03:15 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
That op-ed is a shining example of the feckless conservative that wants political victories, but doesn’t want any of the consequences for those political victories. They want massive tax cuts and reduction of entitlements, but don’t want to be told that those cuts are hurting the poor people who rely on them. They want the conservative court, but don’t want to be seen as responsible if the federal government’s ability to regulate industries is gutted by that court.
They want to be seen as Americans who serve their country by limiting the negative influences of Trump, while also benefiting from Trump’s time in the White House. They fear Trumps impact on the country, but not enough to stop him or join the people opposing his administration. Not even enough to sign their name. The end of the op-ed is the crown, where they say we should all come together as Americans after they get everything they want out of this abusive administration.
I said it before, but Steven Miller signs his name to his racist bullshit. At least he has the courage of his shitty convictions. The NYT clown isn’t even that. Strictly from the standpoint of checking trumps amorality and adolescent impulses, we lucked out by having people resisting that from within the administration. If they weren't willing to do that, the child that's in the white house could do real damage. Apart from the policies they're implementing, these people are protecting us in one area at least.
if the author had any convictions or actually believed what they wrote, writing an anonymous essay isn’t the right thing to do, or something imo that should even be celebrated. the person should quit and testify to congress to begin the impeachment.
instead, they stoke the flame of #resist obstructionism and allegedly keep a president they don’t believe is fit for the job in the job by protecting him from his alleged larger failures. there’s no praise earned here.
short of signing their name, it’s barely ‘hey notice me!’ cry for attention. to say it’s the least one can do would be giving too much credit.
|
On September 12 2018 03:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 03:15 Doodsmack wrote:On September 12 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
That op-ed is a shining example of the feckless conservative that wants political victories, but doesn’t want any of the consequences for those political victories. They want massive tax cuts and reduction of entitlements, but don’t want to be told that those cuts are hurting the poor people who rely on them. They want the conservative court, but don’t want to be seen as responsible if the federal government’s ability to regulate industries is gutted by that court.
They want to be seen as Americans who serve their country by limiting the negative influences of Trump, while also benefiting from Trump’s time in the White House. They fear Trumps impact on the country, but not enough to stop him or join the people opposing his administration. Not even enough to sign their name. The end of the op-ed is the crown, where they say we should all come together as Americans after they get everything they want out of this abusive administration.
I said it before, but Steven Miller signs his name to his racist bullshit. At least he has the courage of his shitty convictions. The NYT clown isn’t even that. Strictly from the standpoint of checking trumps amorality and adolescent impulses, we lucked out by having people resisting that from within the administration. If they weren't willing to do that, the child that's in the white house could do real damage. Apart from the policies they're implementing, these people are protecting us in one area at least. My guy, we are locking children up and putting them on display at the border. The damage is being done, just not to anyone with political power(voters). These people in the administration stopping Trump are just avoiding him doing something that would get them all removed from power, nothing more.
You can certainly say that Ttump policy is doing damage, but these people are preventing a more catastrophic kind of damage (that, as you say, would get them removed from power). So long as trump is going to be in office, we need people on the inside keeping him in check. The alternative of not having those people is much worse. The mans first reaction to the collapse of the twin towers was that his building was now the tallest. He is amoral.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
