Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Mavric

      The 2018 HuskerBoard Starting Lineup   01/17/2018

      The 2018 HuskerBoard Starting Lineup is now live! Click HERE to read the rules, and look in the Contest Crib for nomination and voting threads throughout the next several weeks.   This is a great opportunity to say "thanks!" to your fellow HuskerBoard members for keeping you informed or entertained throughout the past year. Nominate your favorite HuskerBoard member today!
TGHusker

Trump Domestic Policy - Budgets, etc

Recommended Posts

On 10/23/2017 at 4:59 PM, deedsker said:

 

I would call myself conservative, but have found no such housing for in the GOP.

Have to admit something. 

 

Its been rent a few days now and I still don’t understand your post. 

 

Please accept my appologies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2017 at 9:51 PM, BigRedBuster said:

Have to admit something. 

 

Its been rent a few days now and I still don’t understand your post. 

 

Please accept my appologies. 

I took a word out. Make sense now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be interesting to see how this is sold to the masses.  Are they going to claim your tax rate is lower, but in reality, you are going to be paying more taxes because of this change?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the fox is guarding another henhouse.

 

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/zahrahirji/epa-pruitt-new-science-advisors?utm_term=.ht505M4kA#.mdrQv0G5j

 

A large coalition of science organizations, science advocates, environmentalists, and politicians lined up in fierce opposition to the policy changes, arguing the rules not only disqualify top environmental and health researchers from advising but also favor scientists paid for by EPA-regulated companies. They also have pointed out that EPA has strict rules in place for disclosing any conflicts of interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why politicizing these things just wreaks.  It's idiotic to think that all of a sudden Walmart is giving raises to everyone because of the tax cut.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

This is why politicizing these things just wreaks.  It's idiotic to think that all of a sudden Walmart is giving raises to everyone because of the tax cut.  

 

 

 

Someone one twitter did the math on this, and I can't remember who or i'd post it.  The 'bonus' equates to roughly $180 an employee.   The bonus will be roughly $400M, closing these 60+ stores will save the company $220M.  Now Walmart is still paying $180M that they are bonusing to employees, which is nice.  Also, nice that the new tax bill will save Walmart $18B.   If Walmart would have actually used the tax savings and split it evenly to employees, every employee would have received over $8,500.   The 'bonus' looks nice, but it's token gesture by Walmart to say thanks for the huge savings.  It's like if someone found my wallet that I lost and had $100 in it and as a thank you, I gave them a penny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Soo....if the Republicans don't pass something by tonight, he doesn't get to hang out at Mara Lago this weekend and golf???

:lol:

 

 

 

And if he doesn't golf every single weekend, how is his handicap going to get any better? Oh, the injustice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.....the president uses an executive order to do one hell of a lot of things that hurt people. 

 

But, he tries to tell the American people that a government shut down will hurt the military and veterans.....instead of just signing a simple bill or an order to make sure it doesn’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're now shutting the government down over the border wall Mexico was supposed to pay for, and it's somehow Chuck Schumer's fault.

Edited by Moiraine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

We're now shutting the government down over the border wall Mexico was supposed to pay for, and it's somehow Chuck Schumer's fault.

Well....duh......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to be very interesting to see how this ends up.

 

Trump came into office with the economy on a slow but steady upswing.  Over the previous 6-7 years, unemployment steadily decreased, jobs were created, stock market rose...etc.

 

Republicans flat out couldn't admit to that and called all the reports on jobs and unemployment fake.  Now, they are touting those same reports claiming Trump has miraculously turned everything around and the economy is booming....all because of Trump.

 

I was riding with my father down I-80 this weekend when he saw a coal train going down the tracks.  He said, "I think theirs more coal trains now than there were.....it must be because the economy is booming now".  The mentality of Republicans now is totally baffling on how they can talk themselves into believe that because Trump is in office, everything is fantastic.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in other words, because we are a consumer driven economy, more immigration is needed and not less.   Birth rates are such that internal growth isn't sufficient to drive the economy - while not as bad as several European countries and Russia (we haven't announced a "make a baby day" like they did in Russia for example), it is sufficiently slow to slow down consumerism.  It also lowers that worker vs social security ratio -  we need sufficient workers to fund the huge # of us who have retired or will retire in the next 10 years.   Funny think, those families that come from south of the board tend fit the bill - hard working, large families who tend to be loyal.  Some bad apples for sure, but there have been a few bad apples that were internally grown as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Ahhh.....I forgot....we aren't supposed to worry about this anymore.

 

 

if we jsut stop taking care of the homeless vets and broke grannies we will be ok.  oh....and poor children.   their broke ass lazy parents should take care of them...not the u.s. taxpayer.   we will be ok when we stop taking care of the broken people in our country.  they don't deserve the help if they can't help themselves...jesus says so somewhere in the bible i am sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

#fiscalconservative

 

Amazing how the Tea Party doesn't care about deficits anymore...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

Amazing how the Tea Party doesn't care about deficits anymore...

Don't worry, they are coming for "entitlements" very soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I like McMullin vs the current crop of republicans. What he says below in this copied tweet makes perfect sense.  This is what conservationism should be about -  cost efficient govt and not enlarged deficits. 

 

 

Quote


Evan McMullinVerified account @Evan_McMullin 4h4 hours ago

 
 

We should capitalize on periods of low unemployment and economic expansion by reducing our deficits, not increasing them as Congress and the president are planning. Trillion dollar shortfalls are hamstringing critical government function and will eventually lead to disaster.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Interesting. 

 

 

That's a great step in the right direction for helping the most vulnerable children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

This is rather non sequitur.

 

 

what?  not hillary?  or barrack?  nor thor the flatulent god of thunder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

This is rather non sequitur.

 

 

Seems to me the 'not so intelligently' phrase isn't very....well  intelligent. :dunno

 

But yes the above is a non sequitur.  Plus it is another excuse and casting blame by our child in chief. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dudeguyy said:

This is rather non sequitur.

 

 

 

 

So....let me get this straight.  He is blaming the spending on the military that Bush had to do because of military action after 9/11....meanwhile.....he is exploding the military budget himself.

 

:dunno:facepalm:

Edited by BigRedBuster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wonder how many blue hair votes they would lose if they passed this.

 

Quote

Unlike last year’s submission, the 2019 Trump plan would cut Medicare by $554 billion over the next 10 years, a 6 percent reduction from projected spending, including cuts in Medicare payments going to hospitals and rehabilitation centers.

 

Edited by BigRedBuster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

So....let me get this straight.  He is blaming the spending on the military that Bush had to do because of military action after 9/11....meanwhile.....he is exploding the military budget himself.

 

:dunno:facepalm:

The contradictions never end and can never be understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Krugman tears Trump's infrastructure plan to shreds - rightfully so, I'd say.

 

I reach a different conclusion than he does. The reason Trump is running with this infrastructure plan instead of the one he campaigned on is because he's too ignorant, impotent & scared to do the hard work to craft policy & make important decisions. This is simply the plan the Republicans in Congress gave him - and the extent of his involvement will be in his role as chief huckster.

 

 

Quote

Journalists need to stop talking about Trump's "huge", "$1.5 trillion" infrastructure plan. He's only proposing $200 billion in federal money, which is somehow supposed to jumpstart almost 8 times as much total spending 1/

Furthermore, his budget slashes $178 billion in transportation funding, billions more from water, energy, and so on. So the real net spending on infrastructure being proposed is basically zero. All that's left is an effort to privatize things that can make profits 2/

The interesting question is why he won't go for a few hundred billion in actual stuff. I mean, he could get some credit from voters; he could stick his name on things (plenty of past politicians have had edifice complexes for that very reason) 3/

And given a complaisant Congress, he could waive lots of rules and turn infrastructure into a big profit center for cronies, very much including his own family. So why is there nothing here but a big fat zero? 4/

One answer may be that much of the Congressional GOP hates doing anything that might convey the impression that government is good for something. But I have a personal theory that something else is going on: Trump is terrified of trying to make actual policy 5/

After all, a real infrastructure plan means deciding what needs to be built; it requires that somebody in the administration have some professional expertise. And this admin actively hates employing such people, either because they weren't loyalists in the past 6/

Or because people who actually know what they're doing in any field other than propaganda -- be it defense, diplomacy, science, economic policy -- might, you know, turn out to have independent minds and even consciences. They're dangerous! 7/

So Trump won't produce a real infrastructure plan because he doesn't dare employ anyone who would know how to do that. 8/

 

Edited by dudeguyy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another nice thread illustrating what Krugman mentioned above. You can't claim you're investing in infrastructure AT ALL if your budget slashes $200M in transportation & utilities. More accurately they'd say "we're going to keep things exactly the same because if we don't we'd have to follow through on our own plan to cut them by $200M."

 

Spoiler alert: Most of the programs they're proposing deep cuts to help the neediest among us (welfare, SNAP/WIC, Section 8 housing, Headstart, Social Security, the CDC...)

 

 

And here's another list of programs they're proposing complete elimination of. I'm particularly PO'd, because the PSLF program is on the list, and I was going to use that to halve the number of years I'd be paying down my student debt.

 

These people are monsters.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how you can get any dumber than the GOP right now. If you're going to cut taxes you should cut spending, especially if you've been ranting and raving about the deficit for years and call yourselves conservative. You don't go spending money on a stupid wall or an increase in spending on military when we spend the most on military by far already.

And on that example, the military can become more efficient. We can spend the same amount or less, but just not waste as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing like following up nearly two decades (and counting) worth of war veterans with cuts to the VA. Republican (and Democrat) politicians who sign this are unpatriotic cowards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. It's hard to summon up the political will to actually improve military waste, because individual states or interest groups all benefit from it in some way. Everybody will talk a big game about trying to fix it, but when it comes time to actually pay the piper, it becomes a huge NIMBYfest where nobody wants to lose what benefits them and their constituents.

 

I agree, you can't blow a hole in revenue that big without reducing spending somewhere. But it's like they went down the list & picked all the programs possible to most easily caricature them as a bunch of heartless thugs.

 

I guess that's why people are saying the budget is DOA. If they actually acted on it they're politically stupid enough to deserve whatever is coming to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

I agree, you can't blow a hole in revenue that big without reducing spending somewhere. But it's like they went down the list & picked all the programs possible to most easily caricature them as a bunch of heartless thugs.

 

 

Yep, I agree.

 

I didn't want taxes lowered at all, but if I had wanted to lower taxes I wouldn't have increased spending the way they have, and then want to lower spending on things like medicare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, schriznoeder said:
 

 

 

But those are poor people.  Everyone knows their self-worth doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×